The real politics of the possible

Politicians have the power to eliminate the most egregious examples of social disadvantage, but instead they spend their time dealing with issues over which they have little control, writes Jonathan Green.

Politics, they say, is the art of the possible.

This normally refers to the political instinct for compromise, for the sacrifice of some sliver of ideological purity, or even pride, to the greater good of getting things done.

And that would be a sensible system, one that combined conflicting belief with negotiation and action. It suggests a purposeful politics of possibility, one that would make sense of our collective faith in the political process, our faith in what might be achieved by that concrete expression of our democratic will, our government.

Organised gangs of men are sexually exploiting children in out-of-home care and enticing them into trading sex for money, drugs and alcohol.

These are Victorian children in the care of the state, in our collective care, if you like, a responsibility we devolve by proxy.

It is understood that police have identified between 30 and 40 children who are living in Department of Human Services residential care that may have been exploited in this fashion in the past 18 months, but the number could be higher.

This is clearly an atrocious and unpardonable systemic failure, and Victoria has this in common with other states, that over the course of decades it can inquire and inquire, express regret after regret, reform and reconstruct, and still not create an environment of safety for the children in its care.

Yet it is in areas just like this, at the cutting edge of social policy, that governments can have perhaps their greatest effect. Bringing disadvantage to account is a matter of will, resources, imagination and funding, elements within the gift of any modern government.

And yet, and yet ... it is precisely in these areas that our governments fail us most, in the way they tolerate growing youth unemployment, in the blind eye they turn to galloping rates of mental illness, in the pious handwringing followed by inaction when confronted by seemingly chronic rates of homelessness.

Because politics may not really be the art of the possible. The art of the possible would make short work of the most egregious examples of social disadvantage and the routinely dysfunctional bureaucratic architecture established to deal with them.

A politics of the possible would not tolerate more than 1,000 children in immigration detention facilities. Nor would it be able to imagine a world in which some intervention could not be arranged to deal with the 1,760 children living rootlessly in the community after being approved for residence.

A politics of the possible would bring the resources of this prosperous state to bear on child poverty, doing something with some urgency to lift the circumstances of the 600,000, or 17.3 per cent of Australian children, who live below the poverty line.

That same state would feel compelled to act in order to stem violence against women and girls, doing all those things within its ample to power to improve on last year's sad reality, a year in which one in 20 women experienced physical violence, a year in which over 70,000 experienced violence by a male current or former partner, and a continuing reality in which one woman every week will die as a result of domestic violence.

It might rule as inappropriate that the average Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's disposable income is only 70 per cent of other Australians and be appalled that in half of remote Indigenous communities there is an endemic trachoma rate of more than 5 per cent ... an entirely treatable situation if a very basic level of resource and attention were applied.

And the appalling thing is that in all these areas, government action that was resourced, committed and coherent could have good effect; here politics could indeed be the art of the possible.

But almost all are disadvantaged by a perceived lack of political impact ... treating Indigenous children on a path to blindness as a result of what amounts to poor hygiene may not be a great accumulator of votes. How many of the country's 105,237 homeless people can be counted on come polling day?

And so politics pitches a grander narrative to us. It tells us that it can shift the great dunes of macro-economic policy, and do it to better effect than that lot over there, even when in truth those dunes are piled by winds far beyond local control.

Our politics of the big P Possible claims that it can dip its toe into an ocean of the world's dispossessed, and turn that teeming tide. It can make us secure through vast military investment, rebalance the sectoral speed wobbles of our economy by magnificently doing nothing and letting a freer free market prevail.

In all these things politics claims an influence that is by and large illusory, and yet seeks to be judged just on these things, while administering systems of child protection so predator friendly that organised teams can exploit children in our care for sex.

The politics of the possible might instead try to do the things it actually can; it might fund child welfare, intervene to cushion poverty, devote appropriate resources to health and education and all the rest.

It might stop selling us self-aggrandising, illusory soap.

Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Comments (262)

AT:

13 Mar 2014 6:36:41am

What you're missing here, Jonathon, is that politics is not about setting things right or doing good deeds, it is as you touch on, about self-aggrandisement and such.

What you media Munchkins might be asking yourselves, is why haven't we been more comprehensively covering indigenous poverty, investigating institutional child abuse? You know, holding govt to account?

The answer is probably because we live in an age of mediocrity and politics, media, churches and other establishment outfits seem incapable of achieving anything worthwhile. In fact, the precise opposite.

I don't know where the answers may lie, but it ain't it in any of the usual places.

the yank:

13 Mar 2014 7:28:37am

First off we can't blame Jonathan, at least he is trying. We can blame ourselves we buy the nonsense that the political parties put out there. Though a special kick should be delivered to the churches, all of them.

Why are they so quiet on these social issue? Maybe because they've botched them up as well and don't feel like throwing stones.

While Murdoch's media isn't really media but propaganda there is suppose to be another source, Fairfax. As I've said before I don't think the SMH is fit to wrap fish in.

And now what we are going to be facing is a situation of even a greater concentration of media power. How hopeless is that?

The only real answer is for the people to stand up in mass and say enough is enough.

Ben the lawyer:

'Though a special kick should be delivered to the churches, all of them.'

Yes, all those churches with their hospitals and charity work and emergency accomodation. Much better to sit back and criticise them while we do nothing, hey yank?

'While Murdoch's media isn't really media but propaganda'

You far lefties are very hung up about Murdoch. Why don't you, you know, just not read it?

'And now what we are going to be facing is a situation of even a greater concentration of media power.'

I'd like to introduce something to you, you may not have heard of it - the internet. It's this thing where you can log on at any time and read any news, from anywhere in the world, whenever you like. You, for example, could log onto any crazy left wing website and read all about the evil conservatives. To pretend that media concentration is a big deal in Australia completely ignores the internet, and is disingenuous at best.

'The only real answer is for the people to stand up in mass and say enough is enough.'

Ben the lawyer:

'And BTW, do you see any flaws in either the Murdoch press or its market share in Australia at present? Just asking.'

I guess every media organisation has flaws. Provided you don't have to pay for it, they can be as biased or as balanced as they want and it really doesn't matter to me.

By the same token, I would be fine if a privately funded left wing news organisation had 100% of the market share, because as I said above, I can always log onto the internet and get my news from anywhere I want.

Mark James:

13 Mar 2014 9:49:56am

Trouble is, Ben, owning market share is not the same thing as earning market share.

The Australian (along with many other Murdoch newspapers throughout the world) runs mostly at a loss, but captures market share at the expense of competitors simply because it is owned and subsidised by a wealthy individual.

Not so long ago in the UK, the same individual attempted to put a competitor (The Independent) out of business by selling his broadsheets for 10 pence, well below cost.

That's not earning market share through free-and-fair competition, that's simply buying market share. That's a market shaped not by demand, but by the wealthy for their own ends.

Andie:

Reinhard:

14 Mar 2014 9:34:21am

Andie we all know newspapers are no longer profitable but the Fairfax papers are doing better than the other rags, despite not having the luxury of a proprietor with an agenda and deep pockets to fund it..

Whitey:

13 Mar 2014 2:19:49pm

Murdoch runs a profitable media empire. If his media businesses didn't make money, they wouldn't exist, so in that context the market share is earned. It could be claimed that being a popular paper is not the same as being a good paper, but that is a different story.

Mark James:

13 Mar 2014 4:37:53pm

Thanks Whitey, but market share isn't 'earned' by buying market share from the proceeds of another market.

If I use my earnings from, say, Pay TV sports subscriptions (in which, perhaps I own monopoly rights thanks to cosy relations with governments) to saturate a newspaper market with unprofitable newspapers, and so put competitors out of business, I haven't earned that market share. I've simply bought it.

That's not a free-market, it's a plutocracy, and a demented one at that.

Azrael:

13 Mar 2014 8:24:01pm

Mark, I'm not a fan of the Murdoch press and I'd consider myself a socialist (though more Fabian/decentralised than Marxist), but surely you can see the disconnect in your reasoning. You can't argue that Murdoch makes a loss (i.e. doesn't sell enough news) AND that he's got excessive dominance. He makes a loss because his influence is far less than what people give him credit for.

And yes, I'm well aware of the argument that even though very few people buy or read Murdoch's newspapers in Australia, he still has influence by setting the terms of debate. Again, this is only plausible if one infantilises the very people we believe should be empowered.

If, in an age of online communication, people really were capable being so enthral to a paper which they don't even read 'setting the terms of debate' (and I'm yet to read a plausible account of how newspapers do this to online discussion - one can't even 'frame the debate' for a Drum piece on antelopes without 3/4 of the posters using it as a launching point for just posting whatever rant is on their mind), we might as well just revert to feudalism.

There'd be little we could say against it. After all, if the populace is so incapable of basic personhood that they're controlled by papers they don't even read, then they aren't capable of the autonomy required for self-government, in matters personal OR political.

I've long noticed that many people with similar leftist views to myself, will clutch at any straw to avoid accepting that the populace is itself responsible for supporting conservative views - and those straws often take the form of thinly veiled claims of brainwashing that are wholly inconsistent with support for grassroots empowerment, let alone democracy. This isn't a just a problem of theory. It becomes self-fulfilling. The more we deny that people the respect of personal autonomy (which includes holding them responsible for their own actions), the less capable we become of actually engaging the community in conversation and argument. This is why we on the left are constantly making failed appeals to governments, to such an extent that we routinely measure the efficacy of protests by numerical turnout instead of what they actually achieve, in a hopeless attempt to bypass a populace that is starting to ignore us as much as we ignore them.

Mark James:

Thanks Azrael for your thoughtful response. Not sure I can do justice to all you've written in the time available, but a couple of albeit disjointed points:

Buying market share increases influence by reducing the (alternative) influence of the competition.

Some of Murdoch's newspapers make a loss, but together, they own close to 70% of market share in Australia.

To say that people are influenced by what they read is not to 'infantilise' them, it is to state a fact that has been recognised by virtually any business with an advertising budget.

The only way to empower people in the face of sophisticated 'propaganda' is to explain how it works (unsurprisingly, teachers and students of journalism or the arts are regularly attacked by Murdoch's editors).

As for your "brainwashing" meme, this is actually a strawman, as nobody is saying newspapers are are capable of "brainwashing" an entire population any more than they are saying advertisement campaigns are capable of "brainwashing" an entire population to buy a certain product.

It is, of course, far more subtle than that. If advertising campaigns did not influence people, there would be a lot of very concerned board members facing a lot of very angry shareholders. Likewise, if newspapers and the media did not have some influence over the democratic process, we should wonder why politicians talk to them at all, let alone court them, pass legislative favours for them, and seek approval from them.

Why, for instance, did Howard, Rudd and Abbott court Murdoch if they did not seek his approval, or offer him something in return for his support? Why did Tony Blair admit that he could not possibly have pushed through any of the things his New Labour government wanted to achieve if they had got the media offside?

What would it matter if the media was on or offside if the media had no influence on the democratic process?

TrevorN:

firthy:

13 Mar 2014 1:12:19pm

I don't agree with all the points Ben made but you didn't even raise a cogent argument against them. For starters why isn't the internet a great source of information which effectively competes with more traditional media such as the Murdoch press?

the yank:

The money is created because of the number of people that use the media. Hence the more power. Isn't that obvious?

Put it another way, if there were fewer lawyers, you'd make more money but is it good for society to have such a concentration of power in fewer hands?

The internet maybe of use to some but obviously not all other wise he wouldn't bother. And more power in the hands of such a person as Murdoch is for us lefties a real worry. The entire purpose of a news outlet is to give us news, we really don't need more propaganda.

seanone:

v:

13 Mar 2014 1:00:33pm

ben,

"Talking about market dominance of print and tv is largely irrelevant nowadays. "

Not so. Yes, you can get news off the internet. It has been very handy being able to get onto Indonesian news services to find out how our Navy is being abused and mistreated by our own government. But, although I am a heavy user of internet news services and of the web in general, I would still have to admit that my primary news sources are newspapers, television and radio.

But there is another side to this as well, because media monopolisation does not just affect news services. Only a fool would try to make news services their primary carrier for propaganda. If you want to spread the sort of propaganda Murdoch spreads, which is designed to erode the social fabric and pave the way for a fascist "dictatorship of capital", you do it through the entertainment programmes that shape our cultural landscape. Programmes like "Big Brother" and "Masterchef" in which the audience is encouraged to "vote" are designed specifically to promote an "every man for himself" mindset and to give viewers the illusion of choice and control. The idea of singling out victims for "elimination" or "eviction" is barbaric and socially corrosive - deliberately designed to break down human-to-human trust relationships and make it OK to pick on the weak and to hunt as a pack. While parents and teachers are doing all tehy can to eliminate bullying, the shows our kids watch are giving them the exact opposite message. Much of what we are seeing today in popular culture comes straight from the pages of Bradbury's eerily prescient vision of corporatist (fascist) society: 'Farenheit 451'.

Control of broadcast and print media - not just news -is a huge concern for any society aspring to democracy.

Jimmy Necktie:

v:

13 Mar 2014 7:04:57pm

Jimmy,

"Murdoch didn't create those shows you mention. They are franchise shows and they were created by American TV producers working for themselves."

I can understand where you are coming from, and I really wish that I had more space in which to explain to you exactly how effective hegemonic control can be exercised despite its holders only controlling (on paper) a relatively small chunk of the whole pie.

Production companies, even big ones, do not set the cultural agenda. They produce programmes and series that they know will sell to the major networks. Even in a place like the United States, there are few of these and the market (and therefore the cultural agenda) is effectively controlled by the largest one or two of these. So the production companies are unlikely to invest millions of dollars in a series or programme that they know the networks will not buy. The same is true for the news. Journalists don't tend to spend heaps of time and energy writing stories that they know their editors will not print.

And this scenario is not just a feature of capitalist society. Mozart and Bach wrote lots of church music, not because they were fanatically religious, but because they knew that this was what the blokes with the power and the cheque books (in those days, popes and bishops) wanted. The same goes for Shakespeare, who wrote Macbeth to ingratiate himself with the Stewart dynasty.

You don't have to own every business in the market to exercise effective monopoly power, and you don't need to directly employ every journalist, producer, screenwriter or composer to exercise effective hegemonic control or set the political agenda. Murdoch was a close friend and political ally of the late Baroness Thatcher, who infamously said "society is a myth". Murdoch's role in the establishment, financing and direction of the ultra-right-wing TEA Party in the United States suggests that he subscribes to the same, dreary, sociopathic view of the world. And he is not alone among media moguls. So it is hardly surprising that production companies fall over themselves to supply them with socially corrosive rubbish.

The end result of all this is the alienation and isolation of the individual from the society in which he or she lives and, in so doing, drive society further away from the goal of democracy than we have been since feudal times.

Jimmy Necktie:

Exactly. Nobody does. All they can do is respond to it. What you describe, and you're correct, are market forces. But that's all.

My brother happens to be a screenwriter. He writes mainly horror scripts because they are cheap to film (don't require expensive sets or CGI), you don't need a star in the lead role, they are popular date movies, and they do well on DVD rentals. They are much more likely to actually get made. They are a good business risk.

v:

13 Mar 2014 9:07:11pm

Jimmy,

"What you describe, and you're correct, are market forces. But that's all."

But in this case we are talking about a monopolised market that is driven from the top - ie: not by the consumer but by the vendor. This is the exact opposite of the "free market", and is what Adam Smith described as the "worst of all possible worlds".

If you are relying on the market to save you from the dictatorship of capital, think again. It was the market that created it.

v:

14 Mar 2014 9:52:47am

Jimmy,

I suggest that you read my post again. It demonstrates EXACTLY how monopoly power can be exercised by organisations like News Limited. There is no reasonable explanation for your failure to understand. It is not, after all, rocket science. So I am forced to conclude that you deliberately fail to understand things that clash with your religious faith in the benevolece of corporatism.

Jimmy Necktie:

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

When you mention that "WE didn't elect Abbott", it's an interesting consideration. Democracy has my full support, but perhaps you have highlighted one of its weaknesses.

"We", the electorate, vote for a local candidate & a government is elected. "We" also vote for a Senate which may or may not support the elected government. A large minority of electors then spend the next 3 or 4 years denigrating the elected governments attempts to govern.

In many cases, the government can't govern because it lacks numbers in the Senate. And so we lurch along from crisis to catastrophe.

It's just possible that we may get better value from governments of all persuasions by allowing & encouraging them to govern. It's a long shot, I admit, but might be worth a try. After all, "we" (the electorate) did elect them.

R Supwood:

Bev:

13 Mar 2014 1:44:40pm

The senate is a house of review. Originally designed as a state house to stop the larger states swamping any views of the smaller states (hence equal numbers). unfortunately over the years this has allowed small parties (some with wild ideas) to control legislation and debate from the DLP though to the Greens.

seanone:

13 Mar 2014 3:26:05pm

Give us a break you don't have to look any further than Queensland which does not have a upper House. Here we have got the extreme right wing views with Bikie Laws reminiscent of a Totalitarian State and a Premier who attacks Defence Lawyers as Bikie Associates for doing their job

Sidneysaid:

13 Mar 2014 5:18:01pm

Don't get too misty eyed about the senate and what it is supposed to do! Look at what it does. At the moment the senate is a place where the losers (Labor and Greens), get square and they could not care less what mandate a government may have been given by the people. They are even opposing their own legislation, how blatantly obstructive is at? The will of the majority should be enacted, that is why we vote, there is no justification for a handful of sore losers to say up yours, our way stands, we could not care less what the majority want. I am principally talking about the Carbon Tax.

v:

13 Mar 2014 12:41:22pm

yank,

"I would have thought you noticed that some 46% didn't vote for him."

Hang on! Australia has 22 million people, most of whom are registered voters.

Mr Abbott's electorate has around 50,000 voters. Even if every single voter in his electorate voted for him (and they certainly didn't), this would amount to slightly over 2% of the national vote, which means that 98% of Australians voted for someone else.

This is what makes the notion of a "mandate" so stupid. The only mandate any government or PM has had is to govern well, and in the best interests of the Australian people. It is clear that Abbott has no intention of doing either. And, if he can't or won't do his job, he should go.

bush dweller:

13 Mar 2014 1:17:47pm

v :Maybe thats why politicians of similar values bind together to have a party. The party goers then elect a leader.Us/we/them than get to vote for a party goer of our choice who has elected a party manager to run the show.It may not be perfect, but its our way. That`s how we do elections in Australia. After all, we can vote for our 1st choice party goer, and a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th preference in case our 1st choice party goer doesn`t get an invite.Do you have any better options.Maybe 1 vote, 1 option. Wouldn`t that confuse the gaggling minority.

v:

13 Mar 2014 2:43:05pm

bush dweller,

Well, that was largely my point. I like the idea of representative democracy, but I also hate the idea that so many misunderstand it so badly that many of them believe that the "majority of Australians" voted for one particular candidate and that this candidate therefore has popular support.

The simple fact is that neither of our two most important political offices are filled by a popular vote. The Governor General is appointed by the Queen (on the advice of Parliament), and the Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen (on the advice of parliament).

This is a major flaw in our system, and it had disastrous consequences for our democracy and national sovereignty in 1975, when a democratically elected government was removed in a coup, in the middle of its term. The Prime Minister appointed by Kerr (Malcolm Fraser) lost a confidence motion in the Lower House as soon as he was appointed, which should have disqualified his appointment and forced the reinstatement of the legitmate Prime Minister. Instead the Grand Drunk ignored the Parliament and autocratically imposed his preferred candidate on the Australian people.

Mr Abbott was not elected as our Prime Minister. The highest office to which he has been elected is the Honorable Member for Warringah. He was also elected as the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party by his partyroom colleagues. But, like every Prime Minister before him, Mr Abbott was appointed, not elected to the PM position. And the only people who got to cast judgement on Abbott live in the electorate of Warringah.

Ben the lawyer:

13 Mar 2014 3:24:28pm

'Instead the Grand Drunk ignored the Parliament and autocratically imposed his preferred candidate on the Australian people.'

Hi mate, that's not really what happened. Fraser was caretaker for about 30 seconds, an election was called and Whitlam got smashed. The will of the electorate won out once again, and the system worked exactly the way it was supposed to.

Zing:

13 Mar 2014 3:43:26pm

"when a democratically elected government was removed in a coup, in the middle of its term."

Our democracy elects the legislature, not the Government.

The Governor General is the leader of the Executive Government. Since he remained the leader after sacking the Prime Minister, you could hardly call his actions a coup. Especially since the Prime Minister is a ceremonial position and doesn't exist from a constitutional perspective.

"The Prime Minister appointed by Kerr (Malcolm Fraser) lost a confidence motion in the Lower House as soon as he was appointed, which should have disqualified his appointment".

A no-confidence motion does not have the affect you claim. The motion doesn't disqualify his appointment. It just means that they have to ask the Governor General to appoint a new Prime Minister or call a general election.

And since Kerr appointed Fraser for the sole purpose of calling an election, it's not a surprise that the motion prompted the PM to do just that.

v:

13 Mar 2014 8:34:12pm

Zing,

"A no-confidence motion does not have the affect you claim. The motion doesn't disqualify his appointment. It just means that they have to ask the Governor General to appoint a new Prime Minister or call a general election."

Not quite correct, I am afraid. The Governor General appoints the Prime Minister, but this is not a valid appointment if it is not endorsed by the House of Representatives in a confidence vote. In most cases, this is a fait-acompli because the appointee controls a majority.

The no-confidence vote in Kerr's appointee also represented a re-confirmation of the confidence of the House in the legitimate Prime Minister and a rejection of his dismissal. Rather than appointing Fraser, the GG (stands got "glug-glug") should have called on the advice of the House.

Tator:

13 Mar 2014 3:23:30pm

Bushdweller, I wouldn't bring that system up here as if it had been in place the last three elections, we may not have had an ALP government and Howard would have continued as he would have won his seat on primary vote alone as he polled more first preference votes than McKew did.According to the AEC website, there were 9 seats that the Coalition won on primary votes but after preferences, the ALP member was elected. Now in a first past the post system, those seats would have remained as coalition seats leaving the parliament hung at 74 each with 2 independants in Katter and Windsor.

dubious the third:

13 Mar 2014 2:57:07pm

Since when were Prime Ministers supposed to govern in the best interests of the Australian people?That's just wishful thinking. They are to serve Her Majesty and her Empire, which PM Abbott is doing, which should be obvious to anyone wishing to look.

v:

13 Mar 2014 3:48:30pm

yank,

"If that was such a powerful media why is Murdoch wanting control of TV and radio?"

That's easy. While we may source some news from the internet, our "world view" is shaped predominantly by television - and news programmes play a very small part in this. Most of our attitudes and feelings toward different issues are shaped by the dominant influences in our lives and, regrettably, the dominant influence in the lives of many at the moment are shows like "Big Brother", "the Biggest Loser", "Masterchef" and "Survivor".

Is it any wonder that we have a problem with bullying in our schools when our kids sit down each night to watch their heroes single out the weak for elimination? It is any wonder that people didn't raise an eyelid when their right to free association and free speech was removed by the Howard government, and yet kicked up a stink when the Gillard government wanted to GIVE them the right to nominate how much they were prepared to lose on the pokies?

Our society has been dumbed down as part of a deliberate and calculated strategy to prepare the ground for a corporate (fascist) dictatorship. Popular culture, as it is dictated by television, has been made deliberately more vicious and individualistic and, as our real choices and freedoms are being stripped away, they are being replaced with the illusion of choice (eg: the ability to "vote" for who is eliminated from a reality television show).

Alberto Rosso:

Bush Dweller:

13 Mar 2014 10:08:35am

Alberto Rosso :Hopefully you don`t expect to get everything for nothing from private enterprise. Though some are available for free.That`s why you have our ABC, our SBS, Fairfax, the guardian, the Saturday paper, Crikey, Independent Australia, Get up and the Socialist Left weekly. All available for nothing on the internet, or some available via newspapers as well as internet.Careful though. The totality of your information will be sorely limited.Seen any reports yet from those sources re Tanya`s hopeless affordable housing scheme in any of these publications. Wealthy foreign students housed at the expense of our own poor and disadvantaged. Some sources certainly seem to be selective.

Benice:

13 Mar 2014 11:50:51am

Hi, Ben

Media ownership is mostly, (but not solely) about news gathering. If you have the resources to determine what news is gathered on a particular day, that will be what you get not only in the newspapers/broadcast media owned by that particular company, say News Ltd, but by other sources, including online.

So there is an important need to have a balance between who owns the resources to do that and not just at a national but at a regional level, because local reporting determines what gets seen nation- or even worldwide.

To just hold up the internet as the great leveller is a simplistic argument indeed.

And this goes to why people complain about Murdoch bias. It isn't a question of who is paying for it. It is a question of who has the ability to pay for it and whether their biases should be reflected in what stories are reported, how they're reported and what questions are asked.

If there was room in the costly news media market for a more diverse range of companies, reflecting a more diverse range of opinions, then they would already exist. The fact is they don't. Regional radio is a case in point where it has, in fact become standardised to the point where 'local news' is sometimes something that happened 2,000km away.

I am happy not to read Murdoch's papers for news, but do so because I want to keep an eye on how opinion is being shaped in the wider community, as it was openly before the last election. New cross-media ownership laws are to reward him for the PR he did for Abbott and the Liberals. But Abbott should be careful, because if Murdoch turns again, he'll regret giving him more market share.

EVAN:

13 Mar 2014 12:41:12pm

"You born to rules seem to be in denial when it comes to the Murdoch press being "fair and balanced."

Could you point to anywhere that someone has said that Murdoch papers are fair and balanced.THEY ARE NOT is that good enough for you.As opposed to you and the luvvies here who rush to the defence of the ABC when it is accused of bias.

roddo:

13 Mar 2014 11:38:49am

Would you mean those churches who have publicly offered to home all the unaccompanied minors currently languishing in detention?The ones that help fill out forms for refugees, as well as teaching them English and how to drive?The ones that outreach to remote Aboriginal communities to teach them basic trade, cooking and life skills?

There is no doubt churches have stuffed up badly many times, as have all the major institutions.They all need to do better.

Churches are volunteer, grass roots, charitable organisations. Why do you want to persecute them in particular?

EVAN:

"While Murdoch's media isn't really media but propaganda there is suppose to be another source, Fairfax."

Why are the left so hung up on Murdoch in a free country people are free to buy or not buy any paper they like and it would appear people who buy news papers in Australia like Murdoch.

"As I've said before I don't think the SMH is fit to wrap fish in."

Says it all really.So people are not prepared to buy the leftist rubbish such papers print.Always new my fellow Australian has fine judgement.

"The only real answer is for the people to stand up in mass and say enough is enough."

The only real answer is for people to take more responsibility for themselves.People make life choices,drink take drugs,leave home for very little reason,then when it all goes pear shaped they expect the government to pick up the pieces.Well sorry.

Mike F.:

13 Mar 2014 4:54:16pm

"Though a special kick should be delivered to the churches, all of them."Well that is one of the most gratuitously snide comments I have read in a long time.There are all the homeless and foodless people we help everyday, without demanding anything from them. There are all the charities run by every church denomination in this country, where 100% of the donations go to where they are intended. (This is in contrast to many of the non-church affiliated charities where often only a small percentage makes it through to the designated need.) Every day we help thousands of needy Australians who would otherwise 'fall between the cracks' of the system.So yank, please keep such useless and patently inaccurate statements to yourself. If you have an axe to grind, why don't you write some opinion piece and ask the ABC to publish it? Then at least your bias would be on topic!

Trev:

13 Mar 2014 5:57:51pm

the yank, what have YOU personally done to help? I belong to a church that is engaged in orphanages, health clinics and schools in Russia, Cambodia and the Philippines. These are all staffed by volunteers, family units, who suffer extreme stress as they help the poor.

Please do not equate ALL churches with the catholic variety as they have been responsible for more Christians being murdered than any other cause.

Rhonda:

13 Mar 2014 8:00:29pm

"Please do not equate ALL churches with the catholic variety"

Of course not, but with the focus being so much on the Catholic Church, it would be extremely unwise not to be ever-vigilant regarding all the others too. It is a known fact that these organisations are the very places where sexual predators infiltrate.

Rhonda:

Not specifically, but 'one swallow a summer does not make'. It's a bit late in coming. These problems have been festering away for years.

I recall when I was more active in mental health advocacy, in the early 2000s, when Australia was identified as having one of the worst mental health systems in the developed world. I also recall, in 2000, how the homeless (many of whom suffer from a mental illness) were pushed aside in an 'out of sight, out of mind' exercise for the Sydney Olympics. There's been not a lot of progress since then - if any. For any two steps forward, we seem to take three steps back - as evidenced in Lateline last night, regarding the wrongful incarceration of a young aboriginal woman - one of the many tragedies of a failed system.

The recent revelations of children in care having been sexually abused as recently as the past 18 months, while we have a Royal Commission running on exactly that, is simply unforgivable.

The media focus, much of it guided by Murdoch, has for years been focused on leadership woes and the latest gotcha moment, which will get the author a moment of fame, rather than exposing the real side of life.

Cassandra:

I think that Jonathon is arguing, using many salient and moving examples, what GOOD politics might achieve, with tonnes of energy and hard work and - yes - idealism as part of it.

'The art of the possible....' But if we define 'possible' as only self-aggrandisement and greed (remember Mr Gecko and, more recently, the di Caprio character in 'Wolf of Wall Street'?), then......

As for easy answers, AT..... You are on the money here - there rarely are any, despite the legion snake oil merchants in comfortable niches of government, media, advertising, etc. claiming the opposite.

Thank you, Jonathon, for your thoughts. Never more pertinent than at this time.

RosieA:

13 Mar 2014 8:34:36am

I agree that our media has not been doing its job properly in recent years but we can't just blame the media. The issue is, we have become an enormously self-centred society. The focus of the majority is their own life and comfort. I can see in my own lifetime, a shift from cooperation to competition and self-promotion.

Business has promoted "the greed is good" creed and relentlessly encouraged, particularly through advertising, the belief that satisfaction in life comes from "having" and that success is "having" more than others, whether the having is in a better job, more holidays overseas, a flashier car or whatever.

In this environment it is easy for the propaganda, that those in less fortunate circumstances have only themselves to blame, to take hold. This notion plays to the narcissistic view of the "successful".......that their "success" is due to their own efforts entirely and that others could lift themselves out of unfortunate circumstances if they had the "right attitude". They completely ignore or deny the many forces in life that impinge on one's ability to control one's circumstance. They also ignore/deny that resources are finite and that if they are commandeered by the "successful" there is little left for the not so successful in this highly competitive and exploitative society.

We are more and more being fed the ideology that freedom of the individual takes precedence over society. Never mind that this is a false dichotomy as society is actually comprised of other individuals; in other words, curtailment of individual freedom is a balance of one person's freedom against that of others.

We have gotten to the point with our capitalist society, notions of "freedom", competitiveness and self-importance, that we no longer have to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions on the other, whether the other be other humans, other beings or our environment in general. Indeed, free market ideologues would have you believe that we can do as we please and the market will solve any problems, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, as discussed in Jonathan's article.

We are creating very distressing and stressful social and environmental conditions under which to try and live but the right-wing extreme call even harder for more of the same and disparage any attempts to collectively, through our government, change the situation (as per the appalling article yesterday by Dr Novak).

It seems as a society we need to find a way to change our collective psychology from one of self-importance back to one of humility and care for the other. We might all be better off.

whogoesthere:

13 Mar 2014 9:39:33am

I don't know the answer either. Part of it I think is we have been sold this myth that material wealth will bring happiness. Our entire economy is based on it. It's not true, so why do so many still believe it ?.

My partner and I have 'downsized' and live quite comfortable on a small income working part-time (we did work hard to pay off our home). We are much happier. But, if everyone did what we have done tomorrow, the entire economy would collapse. Entire industries (restaurants, cinemas, clothes shops, holiday resorts for starters) would shut down overnight.

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 10:33:41am

The whole wobbly edifice is based on a misconception that we are first and foremost individuals, all of whom are above the Earth and built to fight to see who is above the other. The tentacles of this misconception extend into every facet of our lives and culture. The reality is that we are part of the whole and have as much propensity to cooperate as compete. Humans have a need for belonging which is as strong as our need to assert our individuality but there are very few opportunities left to express that. Let's hope that when the house of cards finally crashes, there are still enough of us to pick up the pieces together and put the realistic way back together again.

whogoesthere:

13 Mar 2014 11:09:44am

I'm afraid I believe humans are fundamentally selfish. Why don't I use the money I pay for this internet connection to help peole in need for example. I could live without it. That's why I try not to get too morally superior, I am part of the 'problem'.

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 3:13:21pm

Once whogoesthere, not so long ago, you probably would have given them something as everybody else did. It was the way. Our cultures took a serious turn for the worse not long after economic rationalism was so enthusiastically embraced by many including govts. You can blame individuals if you wish but the reality is more complex than that.

Jimmy Necktie:

13 Mar 2014 4:47:10pm

Cheer up whogoesthere. I think people on average are compassionate but we're only evolutionarily programmed to deal with what we encounter - if somebody asks or otherwise obviously needs help, most of us will do what we can.

Just because you don't give away all your spare money doesn't make you greedy. Your use of the internet employs people, drives technology forward and helps society in other ways.

Jimmy Necktie:

RosieA:

13 Mar 2014 6:18:56pm

I am not a great contributor to the economy either whogoesthere, in terms of what I earn/spend. Quite a bit of what I do in trying to restore the farm landscape, could really be classed as volunteer work (as I am sure it could for others doing the same sort of thing). I am wondering if this is actually what would happen if more people "down sized" and spent less on things......they would actually volunteer their time more. This used to happen in society and it is only relatively recently that we have converted everything we do to a monetary value.

As I believe president Kennedy said, the economy is man-made and man can therefore change it.

RosieA:

13 Mar 2014 5:44:08pm

Yes, you are quite right Realist, the way is there for all to change if they really want to and you are right about it starting with oneself......indeed, it is the only way! Ghandi said it all with the statement that you must be the change you want to see in life.

You are also correct in saying that many want to change but don't want to pay the price, the price not always being monetary but often personal effort.

I think part of the problem is that we have "lost" our consciences, or rather don't want to listen to them. We tend to read an article such as Jonathan's and say "they" should do something and find ways to rationalize why we don't need to feel guilty about a society that allows our disadvantaged children to be exploited. Ultimately, though, we are all responsible.

As a general comment (not related to the article) I think people find it hard to accept constraints and to accept responsibility for what they do. This is the fundamental flaw with those who advocate a "free market" approach to everything........I think they are absolving themselves of personal constraint and responsibility and assigning them to "the market" as in "the market will sort it out". This approach cannot work because the market is not some sort of inherently benign thing which exists in its own right; it is people who are the market. It is this fallacy (that the market exists in its own right and has some sort of inherent goodness) and our willingness to believe it, that is causing us so much grief and trouble.

GregL:

As I was reading this I thought about the two years before the last election very few media outlets did anything except concentrate on the internal machinations of the Labor party.

This allowed the then shadow minister for health to sit quietly in the chamber and not ask any questions of the then health minister and get away with it. Apparently the boats were far more important to the media than the health of our citizens. Proper policy analysis was dropped in favour of populist propaganda.

I have never ever heard one journalist seriously question either Abbott or Hockey on the structural damage caused to our budget by the profligate Howard /Costello years of which they were both senior members. Most thinking economists will tell you that these years were crucial to our budget position today but all we get is a haranguing about Labor's deficit which in fact is a combination of both Coalition and Labor management and no one ever challenges it.

Like you AT I am not sure of the answers, but I do know that the answers are not the preserve of any one political party or media mogul. Recently Paul Howes was rounded upon by both sides of politics when he recently proposed that there should be a new consensus paradigm in industrial relations and neither Abbott or Shorten was seriously challenged. It remains polemic.

Political mediocrity flourishes when we as an electorate allow it to flourish. It is not the media or our politicians, it is us. We sit like lemmings and accept what is fed to us and fort his to change we must demand more.

Chris L:

13 Mar 2014 11:03:41am

Both major parties benefit from the tribalism where a large portion of the population will just barrack for their chosen team and refusing to countenance any criticism of them or praise for the other side.

I doubt there's much motivation for anyone in power to change the situation.

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

13 Mar 2014 11:01:34am

G'day AT.

In my humble opinion, the best way to achieve stable, compassionate government, is to stabilise population.

Norway & Sweden have done a pretty good job of that. Japan, the punching bag of economists, still has a very high standard of living & of social cohesion. Now look at the "huge growth" countries. They thrive, they shine & then they run out of steam.

Australia is a high growth country. We are also a very vulnerable country, with a fragile ecosystem, poorly suited to a huge population, let alone the stresses of social fragmentation typical of uncontrolled growth.

APM:

13 Mar 2014 11:55:48am

Norway and Sweden are suffering from the disaster of importing people from the middle east who form a growing backward and hostile underclass impervious to change. Japan has very high social cohesion because everyone is ethnically Japanese, although not opening up to other cultures at all sees Japan in demographic decline. It's not just how many that's important but who.

Sarah:

13 Mar 2014 12:22:02pm

I was not born in the Middle East but very close to it and share parts of their language and culure.Your post reminds me of the snide and rescist remarks I and others like me were subjected to in the 1950s. We were considered the 'underclass'- now our kids and grandkids are the surgeons,engineers,scientists and business owners of the country.

The ME gave birth to our alphabet,mathematics, medicine, brain surgery, artchtecture and other advances.Generalisations like yours indicate gross ignorance.

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

13 Mar 2014 4:21:22pm

G'day Evan.

I'm with you 100% Brother. Since we have about 40,000 leaving Australia permanently each year, that should also be our immigration number. They might be refugees, or from any country on the planet. They'll fit in well because they won't be huge numbers & won't require infrastructure development.

Martin:

13 Mar 2014 2:17:17pm

Kudos to you for raising the issue that no-one seems to want to talk about. The planet, and to a lesser extent this country, is groaning under the weight if far too many human beings, and it is this population problem that is at the root of so many of our other issues, whether it be housing, employment, infrastructure, or environment. For all the furore over the number of asylum seekers arriving on our shores, no-one seems to be terribly interested in the overall level of migration and the pressures it is placing on our housing, transport, education, and health systems, all of which have been neglected in favour of short-termism in the form of tax cuts and favor-of-the-month policies.

Adding more and more people without developing the necessary supporting infrastructure merely serves to exacerbate our problems, but it does keep the property ponzi scheme kicking along a bit longer, and that seems to be all that matters to our governments (of both persuasions) at this juncture.

The Other John:

13 Mar 2014 12:37:22pm

The "answer", AT, lies in the fact that too many of us expect every aspect of our lives, every problem, needs to be fixed by government. This is exactly the reason that I have opposed interventionist politics all my life. It is up the individual to accept responsibility in their own lives and this includes whether they want to continue to view themselves as victims of disadvantage or whether they view themselves as better off than about 75% of the worlds population.

There is simply no defensible argument for why anyone in our society needs to remain "disadvantaged". There are more opportunities and less barriers in this country than just about anywhere in the world for people to better themselves, and it is not the fault of governments if they choose not to do so.

BB:

original aussie:

13 Mar 2014 7:28:13am

Politics and Politicians should be servants of the people; that cornerstone of democracy gave way to self-interest, self-aggrandisement decades ago.

Australians are complacent in many ways and this complacency is our Achilles heel - Journalists write what everyone else is writing and won't report on the important stories - therefore the mainstream Media and Politicians of both colours are to blame for the appalling statistics mentioned in your article. And I don't think this will change anytime soon...

Erika:

13 Mar 2014 2:41:51pm

If this comment isn't meant to be ironic then it has an obvious flaw in its logic.

You describe a situation where parents fail to teach their children good hygiene habits and then you say personal hygiene is a matter of personal responsibility. The parents created the problem but the problem ends up as the children's.

This is why I do not accept the far right idea that "people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and try harder" if they are disadvantaged. Some people, through no fault of their own, start much further behind the 8 ball than others.

Even if compassion isn't your "thing" there are good reasons to help the most disadvantaged members of the community. It saves the healthcare system money, it saves the justice system money, it results in what I call "economically active" people who help to create employment by making purchases and who pay taxes.

Jimmy Necktie:

"The parents created the problem but the problem ends up as the children's." And therefore ours.

The parents have personal responsibilty to NOT create the problem. I think that was the point.

The best way to help the disadvantaged in the long term is to teach personal responsibility now. This does not mean we don't help people who need help, it means while we do that we also work on the causes so that one day there might be very few people in need of help.

Real societal change is generational. You start now, keep at it, and 40 years later almost nobody takes up smoking tobacco, far fewer people drink drive than when I was a kid, drink while pregnant, that sort of thing.

You start teaching the skills to succeed now, like personal responsibility, pride in your work, a sense of fair play, rational analysis, critical thinking etc and maybe in 40 years you see an improvement.

pigman:

Jimmy Necktie:

13 Mar 2014 8:28:58pm

I'll take your word for it pigman (is that from the book?) but I do try to be consistent in my thinking. I'm not a greedy evil neo-con just because I don't tend to agree with the left/socialist or whatever we're calling it model, at least as it presents itself here. Just becasue I believe strongly in individual rights, doesn't mean I'm for some sort of Blade Runner dystopia. I want a nice quiet happy society too, I just disagree on the way to achieve it.

*I'd humbly suggest if people keep that in mind maybe we could avoid calling Jimmy names (not you piggy) and instead concentrate on discussion and hopefully some kind of consensus. But whatever, names are fun too :)

the yank:

13 Mar 2014 7:57:16am

Thanks for your comment Jonathan.

I found the information that children were abused in state run institutions very distressing. We seem to not have learned a thing from the good old days. How many royal commission do we need to have into sexual abuse of kids not to be aware of what is going on today under our very noses?

As you went on to say it isn't just in this area that society is failing but remember we are at the end of the age of entitlements so I wouldn't expect the present government to care much about youth unemployment, the rise in mental illness or the other social ills that are part of society. It's a case of each person for themselves and don't ask the government for a hand.

I guess that statement there is no 'I' the word team doesn't apply to our society.

bluedog:

13 Mar 2014 8:10:19am

JG says, 'It might rule as inappropriate that the average Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's disposable income is only 70 per cent of other Australians...'

From the Productivity Commission's report on Indigenous Expenditure 2012 one reads that in the period of review total Indigenous expenditure was $25.4 billion representing 5.6% of total direct general government expenditure. This for a demographic that represents 2.6% of the population.

Estimated expenditure per head of population was $44 128 for Indigenous Australians, compared with $19 589 for other Australians (a ratio of 2.25:1).

Tator:

13 Mar 2014 4:06:13pm

To take those figures further Bluedog. There was an article in Quadrant which drilled down into those figures which stated that most of that money is spent on those in remote settlements with an average spend of over $100000 per person as the indigenous who are either working or living in the mainstream communities have little more than a non indigenous person spent on them. Talking to a close friend who worked in the APY lands, most of that money doesn't make it anywhere near where it is needed as it is chewed up by the bureaucracy involved.

CBM:

13 Mar 2014 8:11:38am

We get the politics and the politicians that we deserve. Sadly a reflection of the selfishness and self interest of the society we live in. One question I have is where is the rage from our youth? The rallying against social injustices? We seem to lack that voice of idealism of past generations that kept society's selfishness at least partially in check.

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 8:52:06am

The longer a country has representative democracy, the more apathetic it becomes. That is because voting once in a while and handing over your future to someone else is no substitute for people who are built to purposefully work for their own futures. When they are denied that opportunity, they show the behaviours you describe, particularly when they are captured in their own competitive ranking systems called workplaces, well most of them.

Chris L:

13 Mar 2014 11:25:12am

I don't think the loss of enthusiasm for activism and change are a recent thing. While the sixties and the seventies saw young people take to the streets for social justice (sometimes wisely, sometimes naively) the eighties were different.

In the "greed is good" decade young people pushing for improvements and social conscience were disdained and discouraged even by their own peers. Somehow enough members of an entire generation had been trained to support the status quo and to work against anyone seeking change for the better that the very image of protesters became viewed as disingenuous try hards and an inconvenience to one's shopping experience. I suspect the marketing profession had a great hand in this, especially once they began incorporating principles of psychology in their methods.

As pointed out above, current generations are trained to equate "things" with success. Keeping up with the Jones' and having stuff. I don't blame them for this, after all it was the previous generations doing the training.

MJLC:

13 Mar 2014 1:24:49pm

For what it's worth, I'm happy to tell you what I reckon Keith.

The Australian 'rallyers of the Golden Age' that CBM is referring to are to be found as today's 65-75 year-olds, so we have a wonderful opportunity at our disposal to track the development of those who moved from caftans and free love all the way through to cardigans and free prescriptions.

At one level I share CBM's sadness of seeing today's youth being screwed over and watching them "fighting back" with pathetic posts on the likes of Twitter and sulking being their chief weapons. Part of me looks at them and feels nothing but disdain - they've clearly been well moulded by masters of human manipulation over decades, and they don't do much to dispel the notion that they're victims by choice.

However - and it's a very, very big "however" - you need to take a close squiz at those from the swinging 60s and slightly beyond who would be considered their role-models when it comes to raging and agitating their way to a better deal. Once they were happy to stick flowers in the muzzles of rifles to stop young people going to war - they don't seem to have the same urgency about that now. They chanted for free education for young people - they're happy to have their grandkids mortgage their future to achieve the same result today. They wanted young folk to be able to decide what they wanted to do - now they're obsessed with having them doing what they want. The list of comparisons is endless.

This, then, is the underlying problem with CBM's reminisces; the goals may have been noble, but the practitioners turned out to be just as ugly and devious as the old people they set themselves up to challenge 50-odd years ago. Anyone familiar with the glacial pace that human behaviour fundamentally changes under the disguise of a progressive societal veneer wouldn't be surprised by this, but it's pretty fair to say no-one really thought about it at the time. The old folk of the 60s grudgingly gave ground to kids demanding that young people get a new, better deal - but sadly they never got them to put it in writing that the concessions won would be there for ALL future young people, not just for the protesters for as long as they stayed young themselves. Not inserting a "no pulling up the drawbridge behind you" clause into the contract was their biggest mistake. I suspect if they'd known what was to ensue they may have put up stiffer resistance.

Sadly, this leaves me in the position of not being able to see heroes and villains as you and CBM do (from different perspectives). I can just see unpalatable villains of all ages.

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

EVAN:

13 Mar 2014 1:00:16pm

"One question I have is where is the rage from our youth? The rallying against social injustices?"

They are partying on like there is no tomorrow.They don't give a fig the government will be there to pick up the pieces.Then again if what Jonathan says is true maybe not.Maybe the end of the age of entitlement might help.

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 8:15:17am

The problem lies in representative democracy where the main battle is always to win rather than anything more productive. Because it is inherently adversarial, the party's interests lie in outsmarting the opposition. In normal times there is no reason to do anything else so the claims become more grandiose and the psychological distance between the represented and the representatives grows. We could change to a cooperative system called participative democracy which has a much longer history and better track record. But I doubt we will.

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 11:04:28am

Maybe need to read it again Realist? I am not blaming democracy but representative democracy which is not the only form. We have as much potential to cooperate as compete but we are embedded in a whole system that induces competition, selfishness and greed. Surely a realist would acknowledge the world is not black/white, good/bad?

Realist:

13 Mar 2014 1:42:30pm

No, I read it correctly. It is not the system that induces whatever, it is the people that produce the system. Always has been, always will be, you can't change it because every human has a choice and at the core of it we all, everyone of us, want our own way. No matter what system you devise people will corrupt it.

And it doesn't matter how much we try to paint things grey, light is still the opposite of dark and good is still the opposite of bad. Nothing will ever change it and denying won't make any difference.

Mike F.:

lindsay Cooper:

13 Mar 2014 11:40:57am

You are correct Realist;When are people going to realise that votes are not their priority but it is who makes the biggest donations to the party.And most people are inherently greedy and selfish, I can not understand why anyone would want more money than they can possibly use in a lifetime except for the power factor, again why do people want power over others.Really think that the human race is a failure which is becoming obvious the further we go.

jusme:

13 Mar 2014 9:44:15am

He hasn't stopped the boats, they still attempt to come here. All he's done is double the danger to them by transferring them to lifeboats and sending them back. Those that make it back to land come ashore wherever the currents take them and then they have to work out where they are and which way to civilisation. Some have died in the jungle doing that.

They may have slowed, but do you really trust Morrison? Really?

When Rudd changed the policy, we know they did dramatically slow because Labor didn't hide the information from us.

Jimmy:

13 Mar 2014 11:42:30am

Indeed, one wonders when the (apparent?) wars in Malaysia and Indonesia from which these people are fleeing will ever end...lolz XDBut fear not, we'll rescue them from that evil lack of a welfare system!

D.G.:

13 Mar 2014 11:59:54am

What the new mob are doing is making a big show of how tough they are, sending in the navy to protect our sovereignty from attack by hungry people in leaky boats. It's all just for show, though. Turnarounds aren't achieving anything. Check the data. Boat arrivals started dropping drastically once Rudd took Australian residency off the table. Most of the decline happened before Operation Sovereign Borders started. The Coalition hasn't done anything to change the trend.

bush dweller:

13 Mar 2014 2:03:47pm

D.G."check the data"Just did. Boats kept arriving after Rudd took the sugar off the table, and Ski Lodge Tony was going to build a facility to house 10,000 at Manus Island.Unfortunately, as was the case with much of their "policies" it was all talk no action. No formal agreement with PNG.The other fact, no economic migrants have arrived for >85 days.Whatever the current mob are doing, they are doing it with the far majority of citizens of this nations support. Recently reported that >25% reckon Morrison is not tough enough.Thats 2/3rd of the ALP vote and >3 times the watermellon vote.Just a few facts for you to digest.

D.G.:

13 Mar 2014 3:33:42pm

There were about 800 boat arrivals per week when the PNG deal was announced. By the time Sovereign Borders began, that was down to about 200 per week. The decline since then just continues that sharp downward trend.

Mark James:

And we know that from Abbott's two-faced opposition to the Malaysian Solution and the fact that, in November 2009, a Liberal Party strategist told Daniel Clune, the American charge d'affaires that the issue of asylum seekers was "fantastic" for the Coalition and "the more boats that come the better."

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the Coalition even had some of their wealthy mates investing in the "fantastic" trade to help the Coalition over the line.

ANdie:

13 Mar 2014 12:50:25pm

The Malaysian solution was stopped by the HIGH COURT.Abbott had nothing to do with that court case. Fact.

The LNP had a policy similar to the Pacific solution that stopped the boats from the time Rudd/Gillard opened the doors to the people smugglers. The purpose of the LNP policy was to "stop the boats" . Fact.

Your problem is that Abbott has done what he said he would do which is a foreign action to many on the luvvies.

Mark James:

13 Mar 2014 4:29:41pm

ANdie, perhaps you've forgotten that the legislation to get the Malaysia Solution up and running was opposed by Abbott, a move which even Paul Kelly (a journalist not exactly known for his Labor sympathies) described as Abbott's "most irresponsible single action in the 2010-13 parliament."

Abbott "sabotaged the bill" and so "guaranteed that Gillard would not stop the boats."

Of course, the Coalition opposed the bill on the grounds that the Australian government should not send asylum seekers to a country (Malaysia) which was not a signatory of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Yet, unsurprisingly, those concerns have been dispatched down the memory hole now the Coalition are sending asylum seekers to Indonesia, another country which is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention, Indonesia.

And perhaps you've also forgotten that, for several years, the Coalition conducted a publicity campaign (including daily billboards) which, as they now admit, served as a "a shipping service to people smugglers"?

The Coalition didn't want the boats to stop; they just didn't want Labor to stop the boats because the boats offered a polticial dividend that was just too "fantastic" for them to turn down .

Chris L:

13 Mar 2014 4:52:15pm

The Pacific Solution was facing the High Court as well, but Mr Howard lost his seat before judgement was passed. Given the reasoning behind it (detainees being held in a non-signatory country) the same judgement would have applied to the Pacific Solution. If I type the word "Fact" at the end of the paragraph does that mean you must agree with me?

Abbott's only involvement with the Malaysia Solution was to oppose changes to the law to allow detention in non-signatory countries. To be honest, I agree with his action in that situation. I'd like us to go further and keep detainees onshore so we can actually control what happens to them. Like it or not, we are responsible for the prisoners we take in this "war" (not my words. Abbott looks ridiculous making a declaration of war against unarmed refugees).

Abbott did what he said he would, if we're talking about turning the boats around and/or towing them back. In regards to being more a open and accountable government he is doing the exact opposite of what he said he'd do.

He seems to be combining all the worst aspects of policy and political strategy that came before him and taking them to the next level.

Andie:

14 Mar 2014 10:34:50am

Surely in the case of people drowning at sea or facing many years in an offshore detention center the end that stops the boats, justifies the means with the failure to tell people smugglers what your are doing to break their business model.

Mark James:

Andie, the Malaysia Solution would have broken the people smugglers' business model because it would have taken what the Coalition insisted was "the sugar" off the table.

But breaking the business model was not what the Coalition wanted while in Opposition.

And, if you think the ends always justify the means, why not "stop the boats" quicker and cheaper by simply shooting them out of the water if and when they arrive?

Surely its the ultimate deterrent?

No need then for the $2.5 million a time orange lifeboats. No need to damage diplomatic relations with Indonesia. No need for the PM to excuse torture and human rights abuses for the sake of cosying up to Sri Lanka. No need for massive taxpayer funding for offshore penal colonies. No need for the steady drip of PR emergencies whenever the security guards decide to cave in the head of one of the people in Australian care.

Give us a break:

Jay Somasundaram:

13 Mar 2014 9:04:27am

What Jonathan is pointing out is that our system is not perfect. On the other hand, Australia IS one of the most livable countries in the world. And every solution is a trade-off, something else has to give somewhere. We don't have a strong military or make wars, fuel prices and cost of living goes up.

Are the politicians accountable? Yes. But so is everyone else. The public servants, the parents, the media, the judiciary, the police. And if we want to call ourselves a democracy: the buck stops with us.

Jimmy Necktie:

13 Mar 2014 5:27:50pm

I think you're right Jay. A graph of human progress might look like a gradually rising mountain chain. We spurt forward then revert to the old ways for a time, then remember why that didn't work, and so on. Lately we seem to be revisting nationalism.

We might do better once people start to live longer than a generation, say 200 years or so.

Chris L:

14 Mar 2014 9:21:05am

I don't know about that Jimmy. It's the older people that tend to be most resistant to change, even change for the better. As pointed out by other comments, many of the people who marched for women's rights and for an end to war are now the people who want to stop the boats and prosecute the whistle blowers.

Jimmy Necktie:

14 Mar 2014 9:55:22am

Hi Chris,

I think all people are resistant to change. It's human nature to try and stabilise our environment. As a species we don't like surprises which is why we have evolved the extraordinary ability to extrapolate the future based on current and past conditions.

But you are right, the young are usually more open to change. They have less to lose.

What I was getting at was that sometimes we need to remember that the latest "new" idea isn't actually new, that it's been tried before and that it didn't work - no matter how much it *seems* like it should.

Chris L:

whogoesthere:

13 Mar 2014 9:10:45am

I agree our politicians are pathetic. They don't acknowledge problems beyond our control, just blame each other and bluff and bluster that the other 'side' is to blame. They are both beholden to interest groups, they both pretend we can have all the 'good' stuff without having to pay more. They are a joke.

But, I don't think Government's can solve all social problems. I have a niece who had a perfectly normal upbringing in a perfectly good family. For some reason she was attracted to 'bad boys'. In her early twenties, against all advice from family and friends she moved in with one, and got pregnant to him.

He had a history of violence, his previous partner had an AVO out on him, something she full well knew. He drank heavily, and sure enough he beat her too.

I can't think of anything a Government could have done to 'save' her. She says now she was young, stupid, and thought she could change him. She didn't deserve what happened, but she paid a high price for her bad decsions.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe there isn't one. But Governments, even in a magical world where they had limitless money, and all the best intentions, can't solve everything.

PS. This one example is not to imply that every case of domestic violence is the same, it's just one story.

Bev:

GJA:

13 Mar 2014 11:39:37am

Government couldn't save your niece, but it could ensure there are tools available to support her saving herself, and does, if imperfectly. Shelters, properly funded and staffed; AVOs and police, the latter being funded,, staffed, and trained; education and work training and placement, funded and staff; efficient health care systems, funded and staffed - so many programs, and all from government. Unfortunately, these are often where the cuts come in.

whogoesthere:

13 Mar 2014 12:10:20pm

Very true, and she did receive help. I'm not saying Governments can't, or shouldn't do anything. But some problems, drug use being another example, I don't think they will ever be able to stop completely.

I'm not a libertarian, but do believe a persons first responsibility is to take responsibility for themselves, and their own actions. The pendulum has swung to a place wherer no-one's problems are ever their own fault.

We are getting fat and unhealthy. So we blame junk food companies and advertising, and try to ban and/or tax junk food, for example. Instead why not tell people to take responsibility for their own health choices ?.

The 'experts' say that doesn't work, but we don't seem to even try it anymore.

GJA:

13 Mar 2014 1:16:41pm

Childhood obesity is slowing in the US. Perhaps the efforts of government to educate the public are taking hold? Knowledge is power, they say.

Nevertheless, if we regulate food production to improve availability and affordability for healthy choices to be supported, how is that bad? Government and public demand can work together for improved outcomes.

Jimmy Necktie:

13 Mar 2014 6:36:40pm

I'm all for public education. As I said somewhere above I think it's the only way to truly create change. Long term education. It's worked (is working) for cigarettes, AIDS, drink driving, domestic abuse, homophobia...

But I am against enforced change. I think at best it doesn't work and usually it creates more problems and more cost. eg you ban something people want then you have to deal with smuggling and black markets and all the peripheral problems associated. You censor free speech, you drive ignorance underground, and so on.

Martin:

13 Mar 2014 2:30:14pm

Perhaps it's not about about stopping these things altogether, which I agree is probably impossible, but in minimizing the harm such things do to individuals and to society as a whole. We can't fix all the problems, but can make a lot of them less damaging.

muzz:

Yes we should tax unhealthy foods after all we put sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco to defray the health costs and provide education to help decrease the problems caused by both these products.

As a smoker I have no problem paying my taxes on tobacco or alcohol so would have no problem with those who contribute to rising health costs pay their fair share after all obesity now costs more than smoking to the national economy .

I also think the taxes I pay on alcohol and tobacco should be put straight into the health budget rather than general funds where they could be used to pay middle class welfare.

Chris L:

13 Mar 2014 11:59:19am

Your example is a very good case in point. Domestic violence in this particular case is certainly 100% the responsibility of the fellow who hit the women in his life, but the fact remains such people are rewarded for this behaviour by young women with an attraction to dangerous men. Both parties are acting on instincts inherited from generations of evolution, but it would still be reasonable to expect them to know and act better.

Bev:

13 Mar 2014 1:13:39pm

Though not admitted much DV is mutual. If she starts it and hits and he retaliates she is the one to be hurt normally. If he doesn't strike there is a good chance he will wind up badly injured since women often use weapons (any attempt to stop her is often taken as aggression by him which is why men are often injured worse than women because they won't fight back). In either case he is likely to be arrested not her regardless of who started it.

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 3:27:22pm

Bev, Chris and others who agree with them, apart from the fact that your statements are directly contradicted by the evidence, they show why domestic violence is such an intractable problem in our culture.

Chris L:

13 Mar 2014 4:56:43pm

What statement of mine is contradicted by evidence? The fact that young women are often attracted to dangerous men? The fact that those men enjoy the attention? Or my suggestion that we could expect better from all parties involved?

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 5:14:47pm

Chris, I don't know of any evidence that says that because some women are unfortunate enough to fall for men that prove to be dangerous, that that is a cause for domestic violence. All your comment so far provide excuses for men to commit DV as they fall into the class of 'she asked for it'.

Bev:

13 Mar 2014 5:52:16pm

Obtain and read Prone to Violence by Erin Pizzey.

She found when she set up the women's shelter that many women caught in DV situations were either more violent than their men or attracted to violent men. Some going from one violent relationship to another time after time.

Chris L:

Desert Woman:

13 Mar 2014 10:07:16pm

No Chris, you didn't say that directly, you were much more subtle. The logic of your statements about women is, however, quite clear, and also well known to those that have to deal with DV in all its circumstances.

Chris L:

14 Mar 2014 9:39:24am

Then you are reinterpreting me, Desert Woman, and ignoring the fact I assign responsibility for violence on the perpetrator as of my very first comment on this subject. Either that, or you object to the very idea that women can have any effect on the world around them.

Above you wrote "women are unfortunate enough to fall for men that prove to be dangerous". You seem to be denying that women have any agency of their own. I don't think that does them any favours.

Bush Dweller:

13 Mar 2014 5:06:16pm

Desert Woman :I agree with Bev and Chris, however I do not agree with Chris`s statement that it is 100% the responsibility of a male.My experience from working in the trade of cleaning up the results indicates otherwise.On many occasions, I see the victim and perpetrator walking down the street hand in hand, in spite of police enforced AVO`s.Of course this is not the majority situation but it happens often enough for me to "scratch my head" in amazement.All aggressors are NOT male, though most are.

Jimmy Necktie:

"Both parties are acting on instincts inherited from generations of evolution"

If not that, then certainly learned behaviour. Somebody said the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Well, it's not stupid so much as human nature.

We have been intuitive creatures much longer than we've been rational creatures. That is we think it *should* work, or we *really* want it to work, even if our rational mind thinks otherwise, and so we set off down the same path.

I know I used to do that a lot. I think part of gaining wisdom is learning many things are in fact counter-intuitive. The sun does not revolve around the earth.

None of this is about shifting blame or shirking responsibility. Our aim should be to identify where these patterns of behaviour, both abuser and abusee, come from and address them. That to me seems the most logical way to attack the problem. In the mean time continue with public education.

Wary:

14 Mar 2014 1:19:20pm

I'm sorry about your niece, I agree the government couldn't have personally stepped in to help her. I think what should be important though is education to Men and Boys that violence is not the only, or best, or toughest option. Against women, children, or indeed, each other. Where our government could do some good here, in your nieces personal case, is to invest in real school curriculums that teach children from a very young age that being a man does not mean you have to buy into the oppressive and dehumanising "tough guy" version of manhood. And perhaps our media could assist by offering up a broader range of good admirable men to idolise, and perhaps show a bit less of those who are infamous for shady deeds.I don't blame "men" for the violence that is perpetrated mostly by them, I blame the "be a man" culture, and while our government are certainly not responsible for our culture they do have it in their power to nudge it in a more civilised direction, as do we, which is, of course, where our personal responsibility lies. We can also, to some extent protect our boys (I have 2 young boys) from this nasty lie, challenge friends and peers when they perpetuate it with stupid comments or acts, and teach our girls that generally, it's not the job of women to change or help violent men, but to teach them the behaviour is unacceptable by leaving them on their own. For women to feel strong enough to do this they have to be taught that Prince Charming is a fictional character, but truly a best friend for a partner/husband is truly the best goal and that in the absence of that, it is also joyful to be single. It seems quite simple sometimes... I hope your niece is ok :)

Breach of peace:

13 Mar 2014 9:13:58am

It is utterly astounding that Australia at the drop of a hat continues to support the Fascist American Neo-cons with their false flag wars wasting $billions of dollars that could go to very needy issues in this country. These wars waste resources, ruin lives, wrecks the reputation of Australia and weakens our national sovereignty.

Australians need to read and research to fully understand that we are a mere docile 'client state' to the UK, THE US and the military industrial transcorporations that are militarising this country yet weakening it in the process.

The state was involved with the sexual, emotional and physical abuse of children in addition to the Roman Catholic Church-State and it is still seems to lack the vision and foresight to stop these wicked predators. The government authorities seem to open up doors for these predators collectively.

APM:

13 Mar 2014 12:45:40pm

No these wars were to civilise those middle eastern societies. You know stuff like democracy, a modern economy, stop the idiotic tribalism and religious extremism. Turns out they don't want to change. Cultural paedophilia is a national pastime in Afghanistan (including Hazaras). I've seen accounts of American soldiers trying to stop this practice, but it is futile. Stop the cheap shots at the US and the Catholic church and open your eyes to the biggest sources of human misery. You can't fix these things if you are ideologically wallowing in western self hate.

Martin:

13 Mar 2014 2:38:58pm

What right do we have to tell them how to live in their own countries? How well would it go down here if they came over and tried to enlighten us with Shari'a law? It wouldn't. We'd hate and resent it and fight to the death against it, just as they do when we try to impose our ways and values on them.

The mistake at the heart of all this was the false notion the Americans have that everyone in the world secretly wants to be like them, and that it's their job to make that idea a reality. The fact is most other societies are okay with being the way they are and they will socially evolve in whatever direction is most suitable for them in due time. Perhaps they will become more like us, perhaps they won't, but it's not for us to be the judge of how they should live in any case.

whogoesthere:

13 Mar 2014 3:18:39pm

Agree to a point.

But, by denying a child an education, even basic literacy, how can they ever make a choice of what they want ?. Knowlede is power. If you don't allow someone access to knowledge I'd say that it a type of enslavement.

Martin:

13 Mar 2014 6:57:44pm

You make a good point, but universal education was not always valued within our culture, yet we developed to appreciate its worth over time. There is no reason to think that the same thing will not occur in other cultures in due course. All I am saying is that we can't make them change in the way or at the pace we think they should.

Personally, I think that over time they will adapt in ways that will advance their society economically, and that will inevitably include education, but it has to happen in their own time.

Chris L:

14 Mar 2014 9:52:58am

There were actually inroads being made, with assistance from the West, to create schools and encourage education. It's a tried and true method of raising the standard of living for people, but it's very slow.

Kerry:

Because these predators inhabit all walks of life and just as many are very affluent, highly educated and influential as not. And they know how to use the system to protect and hide them.

Most of these allegations would never reach the public domain if the decision makers/management within the bureaucracy, the providers themselves and the relevant ministers actually acted promptly on all allegations. No, instead they focus 95% of resources to trying to stop it getting out. It is the same problem that historically caused this hush mentality: What will other people think! What about our good name! Domestic violence, incest, rape, sexual abuse, pedophilia all covered up because other people were more worried about how it would look to others. Add to that the late 20thC privacy legislation and it becomes the perfect hide for perpetrators and all those charged with protecting the vulnerable.

I am critical of the Privacy Act these days because it actually allows wrongdoers to escape quick investigations for too long. The media only after considerable checking and verifying and being satisfied of sufficient grounds in the public interest, seems to be the only official body that can prompt some action. Too bad about the needless victims that have occurred in the meantime.The States and Territories have the legislation and law enforcers to deal with it. Unshackle pedophilia from the protection of the Privacy Act. Investigations can go on unhindered then and evidence quickly gained. Simple removal of the "alleged abuser" pending these investigations and quick counselling and support services need to be the prompt response. Yes, innocents will get caught up from time to time. No different to other areas of the criminal code or justice. No system is perfect but leaving victims to be re abused whilst authorities run around like chickens with their heads cut off is not the right response.

Bush Dweller:

13 Mar 2014 9:18:47am

Are the social disadvantage issues faced by our society today due to Government, media or ourselves. Not that any current issue is rare throughout our history.We seem to have a society that "lives" by the premise of "bugger you jack etc etc".And no, it is not the neo-libs fault any more than it is the neo-labs fault, nor the neo-greens, nor the neo-Palmers. Don`t know what the prefix "neo" means, but many seem to use it. All sides are to blame, yes, including the greenies.These issues are as perannial as the ages, always ignored by the pollies and us. "Bugger you", I`m having strawberries and cream when I get home to my "castle".No doubt, many posters will blame Howard and his middle class welfare at the expense of the disadvantaged or squandering the benefits of the "mining boom". Many will blame the ALP for its all talk, no action and profligate financial waste. Others will blame the majority wealthy among the Greenies, living in their million dollar housing in the inner cities, whinging, doing nothing, and anti mining policies to further entrench unemployment.All of us try to decrease our tax liabilities, whether legally or suspect. The wealthy employ solicitors and accountants to establish Family income trusts, or establish "silent/shelf" companies to disperse income at our attractive Company tax rates. Many are employed by their "own company". All of us have availability to generous Capitol gains tax, whether share market or investment housing deductions, as well as superannuation tax free benefits. Others will blame the poor for their situation.Maybe, one day all will wake up and realise, IT IS US THAT IS THE PROBLEM. How many lament the situation of the homeless, as they step around some poor bugger, shivering under newspaper, Look ahead so we don`t notice the family sleeping in a car due to lack of affordable housing, ignore the domestic violence and excess drug and alcohol abuse of our next door neighbors.I repeat, It is not the media`s, our Aunty, our political system nor the poor`s fault, in some instances with selective cherry picking all can be blamed to some extent, ex our Aunt. However the causes relate to ALL OF US to some extent or another. And our willingness to sit on our buttocks complaining, demanding "someone" do something to alleviate our collective guilt, whilst we continue with our collective hand wringing.

possum:

You speak of the human condition which involves all qualities in all of us. Many who are speaking from the moral highground would not help their next door neighbour.

We need to change and become aware that we are basically all the same....I think this is perhaps what Jonathan is trying to say.......it could be possible that politics has integrity and the ability to make a difference for those suffering instead of treating them like complete idiots.

It's an age old dilemma, illustrated most succinctly in the classics of literature.

Bush Dweller:

13 Mar 2014 10:27:41am

Note to Self :Don`t forget to mention the generous tax benefits afforded to the wealthy via the stupid Family Income Trust taxation benefits.Nothing will happen to resolve this rort. Most politicians have em, most high income businesses have em, most high income "professionals have em, and us poor grunts on the ground can-not "work for the man" as our own company, to get these obscene benefits, let alone split income among the many "home-makers" in our lives.Thats all. So endeth my rave.

Chris L:

Oaktree:

13 Mar 2014 9:35:51am

My heart bleeds for these children, and dreads the outcome for them and society.

There is another abuse that sits under the radar, and that is of disabled people who are taken in by "friends" who get them to spend their DSP on said "friends" and then the victims end up at Centrelink unable to meet their living costs.

Bush Dweller:

13 Mar 2014 10:21:09am

Oaktree :Good post :See many instances locally where the disabled (both young and aged) are taken in by family or friends, Inadequately fed, left to lay in bed or sit in a chair covered in their incontinence and increasing ulcers, whilst their "carers" are off spending their money at the pub or club.The issue is that "community" services can do nothing. The "victim" is coerced by these supposed carers. In many instances, the disabled have absolutely no option to locate alternate accommodation with appropriate care, if indeed they are capable. Unfortunately they are stuck and left to rot.(apologies for the "harsh" language to all the sensitive soles out there, but the facts are the facts)

Seano:

13 Mar 2014 9:45:22am

"Because politics may not really be the art of the possible. "

The deciding factor is the possibility of a second term in government. Unfortunately Mr Green, taking care of minorities does not win elections. Vulnerable minorities are sexually assaulted to hell and back by gangs of public hospital orderlies behind closed doors where there are no CCTV but it never makes the news and the majority don't believe in an unjust world because the politicians constantly tell the media how much they're doing to make the world better ... but what is said in Canberra has little if any effect on what is done at the scene of the crime.

Human nature is the art of the possible to get away with, and there is no way to predict what thousands of complete strangers on a government payroll will consider possible when you're in Canberra and they're in Perth, or even in the next suburb.

Like Julie Novak wrote yesterday in http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/novak-dangers-of-collectivism/5315134 , there is the 'top-down' approach and there is the 'bottom-up' approach, and the 'top-down' approach is the art of making excuses for failing to achieve the impossible.

As for living rootlessly in the community, all we can do is carry on and hope that things improve before too long.

foolking:

13 Mar 2014 9:50:41am

These low points in human behaviour have always existed and now we can do something about it. Offer rewards to these at risk children to flush out the predators. Develop more social programs for interaction with healthy caring people, via tax incentives perhaps. The tone of parliament to a large extent is set by the opposition, let's hope that they raise the bar.

Realist:

What the author fails to realise is he is part of the problem rather than the solution. This is a telltale line....

"That same state would feel compelled to act....."

The state is impersonal, unfeeling, a virtual entity. Why would anyone expect it to 'feel compelled'?

These sentiments are so prolific these days. They are typical of those who see problems everywhere and want someone else to do something about it and, of course, fund it with someone else's cash.

When people accept that rather than whinge about their pet issue they need to get off their butt and do something about it, THEN there will be real change. Of course, it will cost you and that is where most bailout.

International aid is a classic example. The gravy train is full of consultants on thousands per day who are so desperate to help poor people as long as the dollars keep flowing. Let the funds stop and see how much 'feeling' there is. It is the ultimate greed really, using the poor to generate the emotional response so you yourself can prosper handsomely.

And Green wonders why the problems are never solved? Because then the gravy train would grind to a halt - hardly a good marketing strategy that one!

EVAN:

Realist:

13 Mar 2014 2:01:36pm

I would love you to point out some aid programs that are not a gravy train and believe me, I see a lot of 'aid programs'!

Vast numbers of NGO's, institutions and private businesses feed on that gravy train. They are nothing more than sub contractors to governments. Their 'compassion' is focussed by the next lucrative tender. While they claim 'non profit' status they do nothing they are not paid to do and their staff salaries match corporate salaries. 'Care'? Very much, while they are paid to care that is!

Realist:

13 Mar 2014 8:30:07pm

Mark James, I have no issue with profits. When I work I expect to make a profit. What I have issue with is individuals like the author that are always demanding 'someone do something' to alleviate their pet grievance and the 'caring' organisations, usually masquerading as 'non profits' that feed off such sentiments.

My basic point is, if you feel strongly about some injustice then get off your butt and do something about it and be prepared to pay the price. Stop whingeing and demanding 'someone' (usually government) do 'something' about it using someone else's cash.

Mike F.:

13 Mar 2014 5:07:15pm

"I would love you to point out some aid programs that are not a gravy train and believe me, I see a lot of 'aid programs'!"So do I: and many of the ones I see aren't gravy-trains, because they are church denomination-run programs where 100% of the funds donated make it to where they're meant to go.Not that I necessarily have a problem with many independent charities. However, their weakness is that their employees need a salary. And shamefully, some of their CEOs pull unjustifiably huge salaries. It doesn't have to be this way, but it often is. :-/

Chris L:

Realist:

13 Mar 2014 2:03:11pm

Real 'compassion' means you are motivated to get up off your butt and do something about it. If 'stakeholders' had real compassion that's what they would be doing instead of demanding some politician do it on their behalf.

Mark James:

13 Mar 2014 4:50:42pm

How about someone like Bob Geldof, who seemed to be motivated "do something about" starvation in third world countries and sought the help of governments to do it?

Regardless of what he achieved in bringing the plight of starving Africans to the attention of the Western masses, or what he actually achieved by it, are you saying he should just have gone it alone . . . perhaps with some friends?

And how do you think a band of individuals might go about getting aid convoys through war-torn regions?

Chris L:

13 Mar 2014 4:59:58pm

You seem to be redefining the language there Realist. How is compassionate policy not "real" compassion? What is wrong with the government using a portion of tax intake to assist those in need? What is wrong with encouraging the government to do this?

Realist:

Compassionate policy is usually just a sop and somewhere along the line there will be a whole group milking it for everything they can get.

The foreign aid program is a classic example. Consultants getting paid $2,000 per day to help poor people. The waste is mind numbing - beyond belief.

Why do you need government to implement compassionate policy? Only because you want them to use other people's money (taxpayers) to solve the problem you believe exists. When you are ready to use your own cash then you will have discovered real compassion.

anote:

13 Mar 2014 10:38:33am

They are also afraid of holding a politician to account by saying such things as 'you have not answered the question' and 'then we can assume you will not tell us because you do not want the public to know' or 'so we can assume it is true because you so are just being evasive'.

On the other hand, the consequences of doing so may be unreasonably high despite it being the right thing to do.

At the same time some journalists are as bad as politicians with beat ups and partisanship (to sponsors or politics).

Jimmy Necktie:

clete:

13 Mar 2014 9:56:32am

I certainly agree our child welfare system is not perfect. But, I believe it is ever so gradually improving and is one of the best in the world.How many of the sanctimonious, left wing, teeth gnashers on this site, put themselves forward to physically foster and care for diadvantaged and abused children. There are thousands of good people who do, but many more are needed.The churches, which most of you despise, are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have.The difference is they and the government are doing SOMETHING to make the situation better. Not sitting back and whingeing about the situation.

Mark James:

13 Mar 2014 10:41:07am

"The churches, which most of you despise"?

That's quite an assumption, clete. But perhaps it's easier to live in an assumed world than a real one?

Also, given you're able to assume the numbers so easily, could you say how many of the sanctimonious, right wing, teeth gnashers on this site put themselves forward to physically foster and care for diadvantaged and abused children?

Realist:

13 Mar 2014 2:49:22pm

Can't answer on behalf of 'sanctimonious, right wing teeth bashers on this site' - haven't seen too many actually.

Caring for disadvantaged and abused children is exactly what we do though. In fact where we live almost every child is disadvantaged and some are abused. We have the only inclusive education program for children with disabilities in the country and haven't needed to use one dollar of aid funding to achieve it.

I do see the rubbishing that churches tend to get on this site though. It is so typical of those who want to seem compassionate without doing much about it. They are always ready to tear down those who are out there doing their best and churches make an easy target.

Tator:

13 Mar 2014 4:25:04pm

Mark,My wife and I are going through the process of becoming a foster family. The main reason we haven't been able to do so earlier was purely due to lack of space in the family home. We have just recently moved to a larger house with space for everyone to run around in back yard without tripping over someone and since we are unable to have any more children naturally, we have decided to help out the community with caring for a child who hasn't got anyone else to care for them.The child who is chosen for us to foster will get the same treatment as our own son and go the the same schools etc and have access to the same resources for his health and education that our son gets from living in an upper middle class family in comparison to what they would have had in their own dysfunctional family.

Mark James:

ephemeral:

13 Mar 2014 3:25:23pm

Really are they? I see a lot of expensive church properties, couldn't they sell all these and help people with the money that raised? I see a lot of jet setting politicians, couldn't that money be used elsewhere?

Polly Wolly Doodle:

13 Mar 2014 10:00:58am

Ahh Jonathan, "The politics of the possible". The economic historian, Gregory Clark ("The Son Also Rises"), suggests that dramatic social mobility has always been the exception rather than the rule. Clark examines a host of societies over the past 700 years and finds that the make up of a given country's economic elite has remained surprisingly stable. Public policy should focus on raising the standard of living of working people, instead of practicing the 'politics of the possible' - raising their hopes of joining the wealthy few. Average workers share of the pie has been shrinking. The churches set up corporate counting houses, concerned with examining their own navels, and will do nothing to assist the vulnerable. Volunteers do that work.

Raising living standards for ordinary workers and the vulnerable is hard - a government needs to either get wages growing or do things that scare politicians, like REDISTRIBUTION and TAXES.

bluedog:

Indeed, PWD. It is simply outrageous that after years of social-democratic nirvana we still have a situation where 50% of the population achieves a below average outcome in all metrics!

Confiscate the wealth of the upper fifty now! Or should we admit that our system of government is where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Mike F.:

13 Mar 2014 5:11:17pm

" The churches set up corporate counting houses, concerned with examining their own navels, and will do nothing to assist the vulnerable. Volunteers do that work."Every single parishoner is a volunteer. And they do a lot of work.

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

I wasn't aware that politics was supposed to be the art of the possible. But I guessed it wouldn't be the pursuit of the impossible.

Poor old Percy Public battles through life, doing the best he can with limited success, but somehow survives & manages to raise a family. Just when he reckons things are looking sweet, he finds himself responsible for propping up big mobs who appear to have suffered a run of bad management.

He doesn't mind this, but as times get tougher he gradually becomes a bit selective about who he really wants to support. He somehow begrudges going under while others appear to be having a rip-roaring time at his expense.

So, he votes for a more conservative government. Just to slow things down for a while, to (hopefully) repay a bit of the debt, to sort out who we want coming to this country & to figure out what level of personal responsibility might constitute a fair go.

If this doesn't do any good, old Percy changes his vote at the next election. He calls this "the art of the practical".And he's eternally thankful to have that opportunity.

gbe:

13 Mar 2014 11:02:51am

Jonathan governments are powerless against ingrained paedophilia to think anything a government could do would really make a substantial change is Naive.

Philadelphia exists in all societies and cultures at all levels for those of us who find the practice abhorrent there are others with power and money who do not and don't forget the acceptance of arranged marriage and the child bride in some religions and the cultural acceptance in certain races to the disgusting practice of paedophilia.

Your wrong to single out indigenous Australians they are just some of many.

Charles NSW:

13 Mar 2014 11:04:54am

An excellent article that goes through one ear and out the other! That is because so many people are hung up with their political idealogy and not what is the best solution to each problem that comes along. At the end of the day we want a system that is as fair as possible to all of society. When you build a house you do the planning, seek the finance, build a good solid foundation, construct the building and then add the trimmings. The same applies to society! Why is it we cannot have jobs for everyone, help people to grow to the best of their ability, look after people with problems and so forth. When come up with solutions such as what Ken Henry has said in increasing the GST you have ask why. It may raise more income but on who's expense? The unemployed and low income earners will pay more from their paltry income then they can already afford! Australians always had a saying which used to say it all. "Fair Go Mate" We need to get back to that as it had a lot of meaning when I was growing up!

Tackalow:

13 Mar 2014 11:18:37am

Personal abuse of the defenseless, particularly children, is an act high on the scale of immorality. If our government ignores or pays lip service to action that will address issues of social injustice, it is because we do as well.All governments reflect the ethics of the society to which they belong. If self-interest is the driving force in society at large, it will also exist as such within members of a government.When we, as a society, become determined to reform the means whereby we care effectively for the wards of the State, it will happen.

Alison Cann:

13 Mar 2014 11:24:13am

Jonathon,You say there is a political instinct for politicians to compromise.So the politicians think the public says 'come promise' and they promise, and as time goes by like the song from Casablanca, and it does not seem so promising.

bide and fecht:

13 Mar 2014 11:35:18am

I'd be proud of living in an Australia that was appalled by such statistics and actually moved to do something about them or better still....prevented them happening at all. But we can't, we live in a 72 hour media cycle, and a electoral term that promotes high use of fluro vests and hard hats, noses in the trough and babies only get kissed at election time. We lack passion and compassion in Australia, we don't even get mad anymore, yet we're fascinated with getting even....nothing more and we're all the poorer for such a small view of ourselves..

v:

13 Mar 2014 11:50:19am

yank,

"First off we can't blame Jonathan, at least he is trying. We can blame ourselves we buy the nonsense that the political parties put out there."

Before we start looking around for someone to blame, it would be wise to first confirm that there is actually someone to blame. In fact, this is probably the least likely explanation for what is going wrong.

What we call politics is simply a particular class of behaviours generated by a huge, chaotic system called 'society'. Most of what we see as the failings of contemporary politics are the result of 'malfunctions' in the current configuration of society. And we should not be surprised at this. After all, human society is a very new development in the grand scheme of things, and 'civilisation' is even newer. In short, we are still very much on our "L" plates in the living-together-in-a-society caper and, as far as we know we are the first species in the universe to have a go at it. So it would be a bit much to expect us to be instant experts.

We get a lot of stuff wrong and, as a result, society doesn't work as well as it can. And one of the biggest mistakes we make is the way in which we relate to politics. It seems that most of us see ourselves as "customers" of our politicians, who provide us with "management services" in return for our taxes. But, in reality, we are all as much a part of politics as any politician. Politics is much bigger than what goes on on the floor of parliament. It is the process of making history and of building a society which, as I said earlier, is still in the very early stages of construction. We all have our part to play in this but, while we see politics and government as a "service" rather than as a joint project involving every living human being, we will continue to miss the point and to risk the destruction of our proto-democratic society by a cancerous disorder known as "corporatism". We need to engage ourselves in everyday politics if we are to counter the malignant influence of the corporate sector and its sociopathic drive for profit-at-any-cost, and start building a better society devoted to serving the needs of human beings rather than bending them to the will of the corporations.

Benice:

13 Mar 2014 12:00:18pm

Jonathan, this is what government is FOR and it's about time this was brought back into the public debate.

To an extent, though I'm not from the dog-eat-dog camp of libertarianism, I do believe that people who have the resources to do so can look after themselves to a great extent. Of course, government regulation (what some call 'interference') and spending is important in areas where private spending falls short. And of course protections need to be built into the law to protect people's lives, livelihoods and property.

But there is a good number of us who can get most of what we need and some of what we want without too much government assistance. The main role of goverment should be to look after those things we can't look after ourselves and those people who can't, for a shorter or longer term, look after their own needs, and that is what I pay my taxes for happily.

Not only that, but when I go to vote, I look for the party/candidates who understand that this is the government's role and whose FIRST principle is to CARE for the vulnerable people in the community, those who are at risk, those who are struggling.

This is as opposed to parties/candidates who see this as a line item on budget expenditure ONLY and whose first principals appeal to our more selfish, self-interested side.

Benice:

13 Mar 2014 5:10:09pm

Yeah, to an extent, Evan, there are people who identify themselves as doing it tough or as battlers when perhaps they're not. But there are some reasonably objective statistical markers for such things.

I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if you start with the intention of doing this then we're going to end up with a much better and much more caring country than if you don't. There will be stuff ups and failures and even rorts because we're all human. But it sure beats starting out with the 'don't care' principle.

BJA:

I saw the efferent and afferent streams of pedestrian traffic part in the middle of the footpath to avoid trampling on an old lady who had fallen and struck her head on a brick window sill.

The police weren't interested in either event.

When the ambulance eventually came to collect the old lady, the ambulance man first said that because she was a "dirty old lady" he'd put her on a sheet of red rubber on the stretcher. Then when she regained consciousness he said she wasn't hurt, just drunk, and drove off without her.

we took her home. She hadn't been drinking at all. She was off to visit a friend. We took her to her friend's.

Soon after I had to catch a person hopelessly out of physical control in the middle of a busy street at 11.00pm on a rainy night.

With great difficulty I got him to the safety of the footpath. He'd got off a train at 10.30pm from central NSW bound for a clinic which only functioned 9-5, and become hopelessly disoriented.

He asked us to take him to a mental hospital where he had previously been an inmate. We rang up. The nursing sister said bring him over. We did. The nurses arranged a bed for him and rang the doctor on call. A very cantankerous doctor turned up, refused to admit him and threatened that if we didn't immediately leave with the sick person he'd call the police. He refused our home and we drove him to a park where there were railway bridges for him to get out of the rain.

Then there were the urchins - a suburb full of them - who were on a steady path from petty theft and vandalism to "their" bond, to child detention and then Long Bay Gaol.

There were myriads of police in Sydney, administering the legal system.

Having worn out our welcome with every solicitor we knew, we fled to Abbott and Hockey country.

I've also lived for quite a while at two locations which were hundreds of kilometres from the nearest policeman.

I had nothing stolen.

There was a saying "A man is worth what his word is worth". (There were very, very few women).

One day a stranger turned up at our fencing camp with two horses and a load of feed and said "You boys will want to go to Betoota races and you won't want to go empty handed".

Jonathon, do you really expect Abbott and Hockey et al of all people, to somehow surmount the impossible hurdle of the tyranny of social distance generated by a nation state where the dictates of our social natures have been replaced with police and court administered laws?

It ain't gunna happen.

Take your pick. You can have either a human sized population or a nation state, but humans will never behave as humans in the latter.

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

v:

13 Mar 2014 8:23:08pm

BJA,

I can sort of understand how you came to the views you are expressing. It is very tempting to assume that there is a fixed and inverse relationship between the number of people in a community and the cohesiveness of that community. But as with most temptations, it is best to resist this one.

There are lots of factors that affect the cohesiveness of a community or society of human beings.

On the "plus" side, there are things like a sense of common roots, common interests and or common purpose. This is reflected in the etymology of many words associated with these concepts. For example "comrade" comes from the Greek word 'radix' and literally means shared or common root. "Company" and "companion" originally referred to groups of travellers and their members, and is derived from the French root 'pan' (bread). "Community", "commune" and "commonwealth" all refer to shared wealth and therefore, shared interests. These positive feelings and ideas can be amplified by a meme that portrays a sense of plenty and security.

On the negative side, we have feelings of alienation, injustice, entitlement, scarcity and victimism.

In general, it is fair to say that any society in which a sense of common roots, common interests and common purpose predominates is likely to be more cohesive and harmonious than one dominated by perceptions of alienation, injustice, entitlement, scarcity and victimism. This holds true regardless of the size of the community or society, be it as small as a family or as large as the entire human population of the planet.

We all have common roots (Africa, 100,000 years ago). We all share common interests (although we do not always see them clearly) and, if we think about it, we all have a common purpose (to build a society in which alienation, injustice, and scarcity are impossible, and individuals can explore and express their humanity without constraint). So, it follows that if we really want to live in cohesive, harmonious communities we should embrace philosophies and political ideologies that espouse and promote the shared roots, interests and purpose of all humans, and reject those that seek to tap, amplify and exploit the negative emotions described above.

It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about a population of 10 or 10 billion. The important thing is not how many of us there are, it is how we see the world and our place in it.

DCO:

13 Mar 2014 12:16:02pm

Margaret Thatcher, personal friend of Pinochet, one of the most vicious of the seemingly endless extreme right-wing tyrants, said in her infamous 'no such thing as society' speech, 'It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.'I despise Thatcher, but she at least paid lip service to the notion of going beyond personal greed. Australians have embraced the greed philosophy so enthusiastically that they've overlooked the second part of Thatcher's position. The growing poverty gap is a clear and unambiguous indication that the wealthy are not letting many crumbs fall off the table.As Scott Ludlam said, 'Just as the reign of the dinosaurs was cut short to their great surprise, it may be that the Abbott government will appear as nothing more than a thin, greasy layer in the core sample of future political scientists drilling back into the early years of the 21st century.' It is to be hoped that the raging personal greed Australians are currently engulfed by will turn out to be a similarly insignificant aberration. Only the advertising corporations talk about 'mateship' any more, but it used to be a real thing, and it helped early settlers to get started, it helped WW2 prisoners to survive their time in Japanese concentration camps, and it helped low-paid workers to get a fair share of the rewards of their work.Children will continue to suffer as long as the 'greed is good' mantra goes unchallenged.

Mike F.:

13 Mar 2014 5:19:52pm

DCO, I think you have caught the paradox of human nature quite well. On the one hand, "It is to be hoped that the raging personal greed Australians are currently engulfed by will turn out to be a similarly insignificant aberration." Well, the sad thing is that this greed has a very long history; our modern greed is nothing new. Neither is our arrogance, our pusuit of personal leisure, and our inability to see the needs of others.On the other, "Only the advertising corporations talk about 'mateship' any more, but it used to be a real thing, and it helped early settlers to get started, it helped WW2 prisoners to survive their time in Japanese concentration camps, and it helped low-paid workers to get a fair share of the rewards of their work." So true, But mateship isn't extinct; in fact if you look below the radar of any society, you will find it in the most surprising places.So, human beings... we are the great mystery: simultaneously great and flawed.

lilly:

13 Mar 2014 12:17:53pm

This article assumes that politicians are there for the people. This is no longer the case. Politicians are primarily there for themselves and the lobby groups who's message aligns most closely to their ideology. Unless the Australian people can force a fundamental change at the highest levels of government, all the issues you've spoken about will continue to fall by the wayside. For better or for worse, the Australian people don't seem very keen on getting out onto the streets and protesting in the sort of persistent manner that has proven to be effective in other countries. When the streets of our captial cities are filled with thousands upon thousands of protestors everyday for weeks on end, then the government will change tack. Until then, we must satisfy ourselves with the status quo.

Lawrence of Bavaria :

13 Mar 2014 12:31:13pm

Politics as "the art of the possible" is a noble thought but, unfortunately, far from reality. Take something as "neutral" as public transport. For years and years there was non-stop population growth in Sydney's Hill's District. The area was crying out for proper train and bus services. But heavy rail was ignored by consecutive Labor governments because it'd cost billions and this was Liberal territory after all. And that was that. No votes, no service. Why bother, no pain for no (personal) gain. There is a myriad of examples - from both sides of politics - where blind ideoligical pragmatism prevents "the art of the possible." Add the human factor in areas like mental health, child protection, asylum seekers, health or homelessness and the end result is what we have now: Self-serving politicians on one side and on the other a disillusioned public crying out for decency, vision and a desire to better the common good. "The art of the possible" to me is founded on the art of finding compromise. But as long as politics is being played as a game of upmanship, blame and childish trickery - we, the public, are treated to the farce that is Question Time and the scorched earth, wreck-all policies of whoever is in power. If Federal and State politicians only master "the art of survival", if too many are in only for themselves or to force their particular brand of ideology on us Australia will go backwards. Socially, morally and economically. Unless finding common ground (big coalition anyone ?) becomes the true "art of the possible".

Hudson Godfrey:

13 Mar 2014 12:32:35pm

An interesting case in point here may be that of Utah in the US where they have a project to get rid of homelessness by simply giving people homes. Even more interesting perhaps is the fact that they can economically justify this. In 2013, the state recognized that that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. In the past eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to completely end homelessness by 2015.

The real question I think Jonathan may want to ask here is whether in all things we really need the economic justification to act well on behalf of others when taxation that is already understood to provide a social safety net for doing these kinds of things.

The degree to which a rather cynical kind of economic rationalist either justifies penny pinching with incentives for others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or objects to being taken advantage of by freeloaders seems to increase in inverse proportion to the likelihood that the individuals espousing them will ever need welfare. In real world situations facets of their harsh ideology have clearly been given enough credence in such a variety of circumstances and scenarios as to comprehensively refute any real possibility of success on the level of Utah's. Unless you seriously mean to demonstrate that states like that, or those Northern European nations counted among the world's most socialised, have become less desirable societies to live in as a result, or even worse economies, then there is no real platform for the narrowly self-interested rhetoric that would deny a civilisation ought to be judged by how it treats the least of its members.

bluedog:

13 Mar 2014 1:17:37pm

Hudson Godfrey says, 'Unless you seriously mean to demonstrate that states like that, or those Northern European nations counted among the world's most socialised, have become less desirable societies to live in as a result.'

The law of unintended consequences applies in these Northern European social democratic elysia. Swamped by third-world mendicants who are culturally incapable of assimilation and seek only their own divinely ordained supremacy, the tax base has collapsed. As a result government debt has exploded to unsustainable levels and benefits are being cut across the board, leading to even more no-go zones (France) and race riots (Sweden). The elections being held for the European Parliament in May this year will be an event on which you may care to focus. The chances are that the Euro political elite will receive a massive electoral rebuff; something that they seem ill-equipped to comprehend.

We are fortunate indeed that our own exceptionalism precludes us from similar social disintegration.

Hudson Godfrey:

13 Mar 2014 7:23:26pm

You lost me when you assumed the imperative that migrants assimilate. Some of us think of societies in ways apart from the Borg collective!

I'll wager you don't want to be spared social disintegration what you're really railing against is cultural diversity. I think this proves a point I've made elsewhere about culture wars being used as a distraction from the fact that this banana republic is circling the gurgler!

MadPoppa:

13 Mar 2014 12:50:40pm

Politics in Australia is not about the best that we can be or even mediocrity. It is about delivering the least to the fewest, or most favoured, over the shortest possible time frame at the lowest risk to the personal welfare of politicians in the market at the time.

I long for someone who can articulate a plan and an outcome for the nation in the world in the longer term. A politician who says the he or she has an aspiration obviously does not have a clue what to do, how to do it or a commitment to achieve anything!

I am not an aspirational voter. I do not want half baked inanities or platitudes that something will turn up. I was about to say that I gave up a hopeful belief in the tooth fairy when I was three - however, perhaps my hope in the possibility that the political underclass of the nation will someday join the rest of us from their parallel universe gives the lie to that!

Jonathan, politicians for the most part do not have the power, the intellect or the concern to constructively deal with any issue except by occasional, happy coincidence with self interest.

firthy:

13 Mar 2014 1:07:15pm

Put the politician bashing to one side and really think about some of the issues listed here. All are worthy targets of government intervention but many are difficult, multifacited problems that are, by their nature, difficult to entirely solve. Take homelessness as an example. There are many reasons people are homeless - drug dependency, family violence, mental illness being some. Saftey nets will help to an extent but that won't fix all situations. Indeed I suspect we could spend as much money as we could and there still would be some level of homelessness. My point is that many of the problems listed aren't as simple to fix as Jonathan's article seems to suggest - if they were I suspect we would have fixed many of them already.

Ozchucky:

13 Mar 2014 1:11:01pm

Thanks Jonathan,Only days ago, Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten was calling for new policy ideas for the Labor party for the 2016 election.Those ideas must include a serious effort to protect the environment.Apart from that, you have written Bill's policy agenda for him.

Mike F.:

13 Mar 2014 5:24:12pm

Short memory, Ozchucky. The previous ALP leader, Kevin Rudd, held that wonderful 'ideas-fest' to kick off his first term. Nothing came of it. Nothing.And then along comes Bill, calling for new policy ideas. Maybe if he revisits Kev's celebrated sheets of butcher's paper, he might find the ideas he seeks?

BJA:

13 Mar 2014 1:31:32pm

Perhaps you are seeking outcomes which are just not possible with things as they are now structured.

Perhaps you should consider that if there are "women of that calibre" that necessarily implies that there are other women who are not "of that calibre" - at least in the mind of the person who made the statement.

Clearly, and importantly, what is their "calibre"?

Have people like Abbott ever reared a litter of pups who all had the same parentage?

Every matter you refer to, for rational assessment, requires a preferably profound, but at least adequate, understanding of:

1. Who and what we are.2. What are our major features as human beings.3. Under what circumstances can we attempt to arrange matters so that we approximate as closely as possible happiness for everyone.

It is not all that difficult to work out what is ethically required.

With the best will in the world it is currently impossible, as far as I can see, to ethically cater for homicidal maniacs. In my opinion homicidal maniacs do a lot less harm than people with megalomaniacal tendencies. In the whole of history there never was a purely homicidal maniac who did anything like the damage of Hitler who is the extreme example of a megalomaniac.

Yet we have a widespread adulation of megalomaniacs.

Similarly greed is just a depraved manifestation of our concept of future need.

It serves no good purpose and causes untold misery and yet greedy people are adulated by some people as being "of that calibre".

There is no need for me to continue. It's all been said before. However ethics does need to be understood, and we need a society which allows ethics to flourish - and doesn't unjustly and ridiculously award people "of that calibre".

(Abbott and his ilk are easy to deal with - just give them an old tyre and something to eat but for sanity's sake don't listen to what they say or give them any power.

Kerry:

13 Mar 2014 1:33:08pm

Social disadvantage is the tangible sign to others doing much better out of life that they are doing better out of life. We do not know when to be satisfied with what we have. The basics of survival are food, safety and shelter. Not every Australian shares in those basics equally.In the over sanitised language of the US, like the collateral damage term, debate about social disadvantage is done in terms such a food insecurity and childhood food insecurity. When poverty and abject poverty, absence of equity and opportunity are very understandable and action motivated terms.

The market has convinced our politicians that the market will take care of every aspect of the economy including the disadvantaged or the politicians are using this to avoid a difficult and complex part of their reason for being in the 20th C and into the 21st. The "where is the bottom line for us and economic advantage market" has no capacity to ensure society betterment without strong leadership and steering from government and politicians generally. Whether politicians will accept it or not they must be the drivers or get out of the mix and throw it back to the charities and churches exclusively. Dickens highlighted the massive social disadvantage that never diminished in a system left to fragmentation and no co-ordinating voice and power.Remember Britain only closed the last of the work houses in the 1930's.

Big Nana:

13 Mar 2014 1:45:28pm

Perhaps life is different in remote areas. I live in a small town in the Kimberley and never fail to be pleasantly surprised by the amount of voluntary community work done by many of the people in town. We have a Feed the Little Children group who Cook and deliver donated food to indigenous children, a volunteer rubbish collection crew who clean up around the town once a month. One gentlemen has started up a bicycle recycling depot,,where people donate old bikes and he gets young indigenous kids off the streets and gets them restoring bikes for their own use. Another group have starting a fishing club for kids in the town who normally wouldn't have access to this activity. Others donate time to sports and leisure activities for kids. It is an amazing community and to me, represents the best of Australia. City dwellers may have lost that feeling of community, but in the bush it is alive and well.

Hubert:

The elephant has been in the room so long, I sometimes think it has been forgotten.

Politics are purely a means to an end. It's the end, or the goals that have been somehow corrupted. It's difficult to nail down how and when this happened, but there are a number of obvious factors.

Firstly, we effectively have a two horse race. Sure there are minor players, who sometimes hold some (balance of) power, but in the long run, it's all about two parties. Both parties look at the electorates, and largely ignore the "safe" seats. Policies are then formulated, or changed, to woo these electorates. A good example is western Sydney, and Labor changing it's approach on assylum seekers in an attempt to appeal to these marginal seats.

Next you have globalisation, and all of the associated factors which effect our economy (and thus our perception of how well a government is doing), even though our government have little or no control over thee factors.

Then you have the media. The valuable fourth estate, whose intent should be to hold the government to account. Sadly this is not so much the case anymore as much of the media have "taken sides" for their own self interest.

All of these factors combine to sway our attention from the things that really matter, like the environment, improving our standard of living, healthcare and education, looking out for the vulnerable and the less fortunate. I'm sure in many cases there's a disparity between how people vote (often self interest), and how they see they view themselves morally (as a nice person). I guess everyone thinks they're a good driver too!

Whitey:

13 Mar 2014 2:15:24pm

Jonathen, while children living in real poverty in Australia is unacceptable, the 17.3% is an entirely arbitrary figure, and merely is a reflection on the Acoss figures, which assume that the bottom twenty percent of people, are, by definition, living in poverty. Real poverty is a mix of social, economic and environmental conditions, and it isn't as simple as a determined government implementing some policy, throwing money at it and fixing it. Politicians of good will have been trying to fix this problem for a lot of years, with generally poor results.

Kerry:

13 Mar 2014 5:08:36pm

Remember Tony Abbott has personally taken this on a part of his prime ministership. It was supposed to have started from day 1 of his prime ministership but he has been very mute on that subject and so has the media to holding him at his word.

Words are meaningless without deeds. So far Mr Abbott is showing no understanding of what that means.

Reinhard:

13 Mar 2014 2:34:55pm

Thanks Jonathan these cases of child abuse and children in detention centres certainly are horrific, it is obvious that the system is broken and has let them down badly. Something that also caught my attention recently is the case of Rosie Ann Fulton, an intellectually disabled (due to the effects of foetal alcohol syndrome) aboriginal woman caught up in a bizarre legal catch 22. She has spent 18 months in a Kalgoorlie jail without a trial or conviction after being charged with driving offences, only because the court found her unfit to plea. She is not alone either, being one of 40 or so indigenous Australians caught up in a similiar situation. How can we demand that our indigenous peoples abide by our legal system when that system has failed them so spectacularly?

jusme:

13 Mar 2014 2:36:39pm

I've always thought the statement "politics is the art of the possible" as very weak and just an admission of failure from the get go.

I would love to see the Tasmanians vote for a government dominated neither by Labor or Liberal. They've both had turns over the years and neither has the ability to overcome whatever it is that holds Tassie back.

Maybe trying something radical is worth a chance down there, a Green-PUP coalition might be interesting for example. Clive certainly has ideas and the Greens would veto any that would wreck the joint.

Break free from the status quo Tassie! Dare to be different and don't accept anythings impossible just because the major parties lack courage to try.

Gilly:

13 Mar 2014 2:57:18pm

Yes politics has it completely the wrong way about. Too much effort put into macro economic effect. As my grandfather used to say, "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after them selves". So take care of the micro economies and the electors first, then worry about macroeconomics and big business.

BAJ Darwin:

13 Mar 2014 2:59:07pm

Thanks for your article Jonathan Green. It IS dispiriting that what we hope for from political action in the correcting of disastrous outcomes for the vulnerable is in fact not always addressed and sometimes only AFTER a disastrous outcome happens and it IS publicised.

It was obvious to many in the Northern Territory for many years that the indigenous population has had and is having disastrous outcomes in health, housing, education, child protection and employment.

Recently the outsourcing of maintenance work in regional and remote communities in the NT was granted to a private company, thus denying many local Aborigines of employment they had in doing this work. A decision that clearly did not think of the bad outcomes it had for local people in the community.

The rationale beggars belief. Stated to be because a cheaper tender was found. This is unconscionable and the clear benefits to the community and its members of having locals do the maintenance work on houses etc. was ignored by the government.

Joan:

13 Mar 2014 3:31:21pm

How about parents do the right thing. The kids in danger have been let down by their parents whether they are Aboriginal or rest of community . Politics is about running the country its up to parents and community to keep kids cared for and safe. Any country with failed economy has worse outcomes for kids , the child abuse that goes on in Third world countries is mind boggling. and number people sleeping on streets make Australian situation look like peanuts. Only a fool would think that it is better that a government ignore the economy. Australia might not be perfect but it sure ain`t the bad picture you make of it.

Worse case scenario:

13 Mar 2014 4:44:17pm

Very well put, Mr Green.Our governments treat us this way for the simple fact that a population fighting amongst itself for the crumbs falling from the tables of the wealthy makes us so easy to control.This lack of providing the basic provisions of life to those who cannot afford them create predictable divisions between the various strata of society (the politics of envy). Divisions that can then be manipulated by the government, at will, to produce an atmosphere in the community of fear and hate to varying degrees within which they can promote their agenda of austerity and dry economic policy and practice. Or whatever snake oil is being sold by the politicians who are only really promoters of the International Banksters and Hedge fund Pirateers with their get rich at all costs to us schemes. Refugees/asylum seekers are a perfect example of this way of thinking at work. The government manipulates the information by limiting/censoring what information is available about what is happening in the processing centers/concentration camps and the 'on water' matters. This promotes certain attitudes in the community at the expense of others.Ask yourselves who is making all the money from having those centers off shore? Answer: The big multinationals running those centers, that's who. Financed by the International Banksters BUT payed for by our TAX DOLLARS!I believe that we have allowed this situation to develop because of what Mr Green has been writing about. Mr Green has made note of the fact that as one of the richest nations on earth we cannot even keep our own people off the streets due to homelessness when it is obvious that we could sort this problem out almost overnight except,.....we have been taught to believe that these people somehow deserve to be where they are because 'that's just the way it is' and to try and change it would place their own wealth and sense of well being at mortal risk.In fact, to identify with the victim condemns you to becoming one......or so the popular wisdom goes. Attitudes installed by who or what, and how?It's my jaundiced opinion that our leaders need to WAKE-UP and recognize we are not so stupid no more.

Conrad:

13 Mar 2014 5:44:25pm

The answer is not the free market, but why is the answer for the government to spend more money? Much more likely that a lot of the failure is because a lot of these things our government simply cannot 'do' at all well, because of the systems that have grown up over the 40 years of the welfare state.

The answer to doing is significant organizational change, but thats far harder for government. Even the private sector only does that when profit is threatened.

VV:

13 Mar 2014 8:05:59pm

This government brakes my heart every day. Today there was news that 2 agencies who have provided support for the mentally ill for the last 20 years has been defunded. No reasons given. The only comment from the department responsible was that the funding was subject to a tendering process. Oh such cruelty and stupidity in the name of efficiency.

bunyip:

13 Mar 2014 9:56:31pm

"The politics of the possible might instead try to do the things it actually can; it might fund child welfare, intervene to cushion poverty, devote appropriate resources to health and education and all the rest."

But Jonathan, that would mean actually doing something for someone and we can't do that because it would be bad for their moral development, wouldn't it?

And we would have to ask ourselves some pretty horrifying questions such as why we, as a society, smugly congratulate ourselves on our own success and comfort while secretly enjoying the misery of others.

And we would have to ask ourselves why we continue to vote for people who we know will do nothing to change the staus quo that keeps us in our soapy comfort zone.

Avargo:

13 Mar 2014 10:52:28pm

" Yet it is in areas just like this, at the cutting edge of social policy, that governments can have perhaps their greatest effect. Bringing disadvantage to account is a matter of will, resources, imagination and funding, elements within the gift of any modern government. "

Sebastian Lionheart:

14 Mar 2014 11:18:05am

Jonathan.

To be more accurate, Australia has always been described, as a one-party state: the business party, with two factions called Liberal (LNP) and Labor.

When Australia gained complete independence on March 3, 1986, it sought to join the international community of the day. By achieving this status, the new nation with the remnant of illiterate colonial scoundrels also gained the right to act as it wished internally through to this current time. It could thus now proceed to rid itself of the indigenous population, the refugees and forge racial vilification.

Australia can delay resettlement of refugees that arrive by boat indefinitely. They've been doing that since the Howard era, virtual international isolation. It has a long, important story that I don't have time to go into here. So, therefore, there is no hope for an easy way to end what the rest of the world regards as the most severe current human-right issues, no way unless there is large-scale public pressure. But there cannot be large scale communal pressure unless people at least know about it when it is kept very secretive, all cozy in Canberra and razor fences Manus Island. And the ABC media have done a stellar job in averting that danger, when nothing substantial reported about the incidence or about any of the background, no discussion, apart from the first few days of control journals where you can read in conjunction. So, that blocks the easy way to end the worst existing crisis, unless people somehow figure out a way to break through this.

As history will always show that, becoming a treaty-worthy nation thus conferred multiple advantages, foreign recognition, and the freedom to act at home without interference.

Hegemonic power provides the opportunity to become a roque state, freely defying international law and norms, while facing increased resistance abroad and would eventually, contributing to its own decline through self-inflicted wounds.